The Artemis Program
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com... for 10% off on your first purchase.
Got a beard? Good. I've got something for you: beardblaze.com
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
This video is #sponsored by Squarespace.
Love content? Check out Simon's other UA-cam Channels:
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Casual Criminalist: / @thecasualcriminalist
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
XPLRD: / @xplrd
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com/megaprojects for 10% off on your first purchase.
Nice video
Hi, the space shuttle always used tiles and was never intended to use an ablative heat shield.
Great video. Please do make one on the Mangalyan mission of India
We need a SPACE X video! love your work!
If it were not for the competitive element with Apollo, we would still be "planning" to go to the moon, with bureaucrats and corporate industrial complexes milking the treasury all the way. Apollo was steroids for the USA in multiple dimensions: political, moral, industrial, technical, social, etc. We all benefit from the technological advancements it produced: from styrofoam cups to the computer chip. We all just need to be gracious and say "thanks" to those extraordinary people who made that happen in 1969.
Others have probably mentioned it, but the Apollo 1 fire was not due to hydrogen. The fire was caused by an electrical spark of some kind, and the extreme intensity was due to the pure oxygen atmosphere inside the spacecraft.
Simon never said the fire was caused by the hydrogen. He said hydrogen has never been used since the fire.
@@cfdtv1 It seemed to be implied, thus Nevada Hamaker felt the need to clarify. Considering the collective IQ of the masses, I think that was a smart decision.
@@cfdtv1 I believe the upper stages of the Apollo stack used hydrogen/lox fuel.
@@massmike11 SLS is also Hydrogen and Liquid Oxygen fueled
The Delta IV rocket (still being used by ULA but it is being retired and replaced by the Vulcan rocket) also uses Liquid Hydrogen/LOX engines. As did the Space Shuttle.
Also of note that it wasn't just the pure Oxygen atmosphere inside the capsule that killed the Apollo 1 crew, but rather pure Oxygen at 1 bar pressure. That made for a very volatile situation.
The Apollo missions including Skylab continued to use a pure Oxygen atmosphere for life support, but it was at a much lower 200 milibar pressure. Which is more than sufficient for human respiration.
Definately do one on Starship/ Moonship would be a great watch!
That would be an amazing video
I am sure he will after it seems that it is done. though wouldn't mind if they do a 2 part on it. part 1 would be everything up to 2021, part 2 would be after it seems to be sending people up to space
Might be too volitile a topic in motion everydayastronaut did a great video on them FYI
@@Mr2winners it's always great to see another perspective, yes the SpaceX community has some great updates, but would love to see this channels take on the technology
true. but it would be interesting to see how if they find anything TimDod didn't
1:25 - Chapter 1 - Artemis
5:05 - Chapter 2 - The space launch system
8:20 - Mid roll ads
9:45 - Chapter 3 - The orion module
18:30 - Chapter 4 - The HLS
The irony that Artemis killed Orion in mythology, is not lost among its engineers.
let's hope it doesn't happen in real life with a kaboem
Lies again? Apex Predator Italian Spanish
@@NazriBare you just saying random words?
@@teaser6089 If it goes KABOOM i would blame the DIE, not the bad luck associated with the names...
In some stories, a scorpion killed him.
A lot of our technological miniaturization came from the Apollo program. This often gets overlooked
Would love to see a Starship episode!!
lets let starship become a more mature platform first.
Seconded
Same here. I've been asking for the same. It will happen
I would as well
Look on you tube. They had 3 Starship RUDs
It is exciting to be one of the many people involved with Artemis. I grew up learning and obssessing over Apollo and now am part of and involved in the next generation taking man back to the moon and beyond.
Beg beg beg
Well done mate 👌
Must be working hard. Watching you tube in the middle of the work week? You're fired.
And how does one get involved in such projects? Asking for a mate of course 😜
#brag
@@psychohazards not even a #humblebrag with this one.
Great video as usual Simon! Please do videos on The Lunar Gateway and on SpaceX's Starship and Super Heavy Booster. HLS would also be cool but I am not sure how much hard info is out there on that.
Yeah lets look into the spacex stuff. having professionals fact check that would actually be really interesting. Would maybe help prove its do-able or debunk the viability of a lot of what Elon is saying he wants to achieve. Not a hater or a believer I would just be interested to see some non emotional review of the subject from people who actually know what they are talking about.
@@neonteepee8453 NASA selected SpaceX so that's a pretty big vote of confidence. Look into the GAO rebuttal of Blue and Dynetics protests and it's pretty clear why SpaceX won.
The end of the video suggests Gateway is coming up, so that’s good, eh
Yeah I'm pretty skeptical that anything involving the ULA is going to succeed. They are years behind, no test flights have happened. They should have tested sls before SpaceX had the first successful test flight of starship. I have some faith in Lockheed, but Boeing isn't exactly inspiring these days.
@@bensemusx I read that - It just says that the protest/request for review was not justified as NASA hadn't done anything wrong/illegal/against policy in awarding the contract. It doesn't say that SpaceX is capable or not capable of fulfilling the contract just that it was the lowest bidder. Like I say it would be interesting to see what a professional researcher could come up with.
I've had the honor of seeing two shuttle launches, both by accident. The first was from the air on a commercial flight. The captain came over the intercom and told us to look out the left side of the plane and in the (very) far distance, we could see the flame as it pitched over to to the east; and the second time I was driving to the airport in Orlando and happened to see the Discovery appear in the sky in front of me.
fun fact: I got to submit an engineering design proposal and prototype to a NASA Artemis competition which was designed to solve a lot of the problems that lunar dust poses (to electronics, launch systems, eventual habitats, space suits, human health, etc.). my group spent almost a year designing a lunar dust filtration system for the phase 3 habitat of the Artemis mission. was a huge undertaking & it’s super cool to think that our input could actually influence the design of future lunar and martian habitats!
and since Simon didn’t really cover this, the Artemis program has multiple phases: phase 1 is establishing the lunar gateway orbiter (2024), phase 2 is short-term scientific visits to the lunar surface from the orbiter while running resupply missions and establishing surface maneuverability (2024-2028), and phase 3 is an established long-term lunar habitat (2028).
I'm so stoked for phase 3, it's such a big development for humanity. We're finally getting the fuck off this beautiful blue rock.
your comment deserves more upvotes!!!!! How awesome that you got to try to tackle this issue. I hope i get to see your name, photo or person in interviews in future videos and docs that cover phase 3.
Good on you for your achievement; but if you believe NASA will achieve anything but sending an expensive tin can up into space again, watch out for those pigs too.
Right now, exotic lunar maneuvers aside, I'll settle for seeing the thing light up when it's supposed to!
As the late, great Gus Grissom might have said: "how are we supposed to get to the moon if we can't even get off the ground?"
By comparison with what's to follow, launch is the easy bit - and we seem to be struggling already.
I think we can safely take current timelines and double them, while tripling today's cost projections.
NASA is putting on a show for the masses. I'd you really believe that humans have ever been to the moon let alone have ever been in to space, you need to get the space between your ears checked out.
The Apollo program was, like every other NASA program, not so much an exploratory program as it was Proof-of-Concept. Mercury: Can we send a human to orbit and bring them back alive? Answer: Yes. Gemini: Can we perfect on-orbit rendezvous, docking, and EVA? Answer: Yes. Apollo: Can we, in fact, send humans to the moon, land them, and bring them back alive? Answer: Yes. The ISS: Can we perfect on-orbit construction to build a multi-modular vehicle system in LEO? Answer: Yes. The STS, or Space Shuttle: Can we design, build, launch, and operate a space transportation orbiter that can bring launch and mission costs of crew and cargo down to around $10 million per mission? Answer: NO! The cost projections of the orbiters was off by a factor of 100, with mission costs (including flight-readiness turnaround maintenance) hitting nearly $1 Billion per mission.
The Artemis Program is the first true exploratory mission.
Well said!
Space Shuttle is too much for 70s-80s tech, but spaceplane design still has its advantages that other designs can't do. Even Space Shuttle programs can't do their original goal of rapid reusability and cost reduction, it still achieves a lot; more than half of all people who went into space are from Space Shuttle and many iconic programs is impossible without the shuttle. It is still one of my favorites with all of its flaws that is, maybe the next shuttle with better tech can do what the original can't.
For now, I have the highest hope for Artemis! and will watch every step of it.
@@DOSFS The shuttle, for all it's positives, was too expensive, took too long to turnaround, and had a mediocre safety record with 2 failures in only 135 flights, with 13 fatalities. The US military applications (which were never actually performed) added too many additional requirements that hurt the program.
Maybe first manned exploratory mission. There were plenty of unmanned exploration missions.
@@zysmith it seems the US military's already has their own shuttle after the failure of The Space Shuttle program, with the introduction of the x-37a/b
Absolutely need to see a video on the SpaceX Starship
Starship is currently more about generating $$$ in Tesla share sales, its no where near capable of going to the moon and wont be for at least a decade.
@@Battleneter 🐂💩
@@Battleneter Tesla has nothing to do with the SpaceX Starship. Starship is about Musk’s stated desire to make humanity a multi-planet species by building a colony on Mars.
The GAO determined that each launch of the expendable SLS rocket will cost $2 billion. After the abilities of the fully reusable SpaceX Starship are demonstrated, Congress might lose their stomach for the SLS/Orion money pit.
@@Laura-S196 sure sure, nothing to do with Elon Musk companies, where does SpaceX money come from again?
One correction: he actually said " one small step for A man", but the vox cut it short.
Love the video! I work on Artemis (SLS and Lunar Gateway/Lunar Habitat). One correction though: The European Service Module has just one AJ10 engine (26 kN thrust; hypergolic fuel), while the Exploration Upper Stage is the part with 4 RL10C engines (hydrogen/oxygen propellant). EUS is the second stage of the SLS, and will drop off after delivering Orion to the trans-lunar injection orbit, whereas the ESM stays with the Orion throughout operations until it is jettisoned just before the entry burn at Earth to return the astronauts to the ground. Its AJ10 engine is primarily to provide the lunar orbit insertion burn and the trans-Earth injection burn. It needs hypergolic propellant because those are "storable", whereas the liquid hydrogen and oxygen needed for the RL-10C upper stage engine tend to boil off when heated by the sun in space.
Amazing, Simon, your revisionist mockery weaving Cold War reality with a revisionist knowingly myopic view of NASA’s future in space. Simplifying Cold War reality to a base, gotta get there first thuggish mentality essentially taking the great President Kennedy’s vision made manifest when he said, “We choose to go to the Moon.” Thereby twisting his promise to put a man where no man had gone before. Realized, I will also submit only 6 years after its declaration. Into “just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.”
You knowingly presented NASA as having a myopic view of a future in space, it’s moon launch culminating in only short term gains. Though impressive but ultimately stunting any true interplanetary progress.
No, not amazing Simon, as there is no wonder left for talking heads such yourself presenting such fantastic revisionism. Your writer's cutesy, it takes 10 years to build, 10 years to explain, how about another 10 years to realize and 10 billion more to pay for,
Really? Quite frankly Simon it disgusts me, you hurt the NASA of old to placate this current NASA who needs a kick in the ass not woefully ignorant apologist presenters. For a second I thought I was watching BBC America, pun intended.
Very interesting
I want to be you.
Reading this after the launch. You must be thrilled! I know I am! 🚀
@@LisaBowers I am very thrilled! Thanks!
Correction, Fact Boy: Hohmann Transfer is not _the_ most efficient way of changing orbits, it's just _usually_ efficient way. Bi-elliptic Transfer can sometimes be more efficient, but it does come with a big asterisk to it, as it will nearly always take longer time to execute.
Simon and the script writers think that getting into orbit means you've escaped the earth's gravity well.
I don't think they're going to know much about orbital mechanics.
@@Raz.C It's fine, but I can always use that to post additional facts for the Fact Boy :) Maybe he'll even read them!
@@Raz.C
Is it possible to stay in orbit if you've left the gravity well? It's pretty hard.
@@bobfg3130
No, since it's the gravity that keeps you in orbit. Without it, you'd just fly off in a straight line, away from the body you're attempting to orbit.
@@Raz.C
Thought so.
Would love to see the Space X Starship episode! Especially to compare against the SLS. Looking forward to the rest of the series!
ua-cam.com/video/KA69Oh3_obY/v-deo.html&ab_channel=EverydayAstronaut
i would also love to see this.
@@zysmith yeah, Tim dot is a classic!
but I like Apogee even more :
ua-cam.com/video/e9ZKo8h5Ddw/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Apogee
ua-cam.com/video/EojxThnDPng/v-deo.html
After the success of Ariane 5 sending the JWST into Lagrange point 2 a MP on the Ariane project would be a nice follow-up.
Good video as always, Simon. I did have one issue, however. While aluminum-lithium alloys are stronger than some grades of commercially pure titanium, cp titanium is not typically used as a structural material. Titanium alloys are used for structures, and they are on the order of twice the strength of aluminum-lithium alloys. Your statement that aluminum-lithium is stronger than titanium gives the wrong impression. (Can you tell I am a metallurgist, lol)
With the internet access to about any information about everything makes anyone a metallurgist
@@telsat And with the lack of knowledge necessary to understand it people can believe whatever stupid bullshit they like.
You should cover Roman Roads, one of the largest mega projects ever. The design, layout, and construction of 400,000km of roads, some still in use, might even be the GOAT.
He didn't? I think he did.
One neat radiation mitigation method not mentioned is using water. Having a certain module that has a water tank surrounding it. Depending on the depth of that 'water shield' will depend on how much radiation and charged particles are able to pass through.
Might work but remember water is heavy so it can increase launch costs
Yes, please more content on this subject!
I want the program to succeed more then anything
However it’s biggest problem is using SLS and Orion. If they’re using Starship they should launch the starship into LEO unmanned, do the required refueling, then send the astronauts to dock with it still in LEO, not on Orion, but on the current Crew Dragon spacecraft. Send the Dragon home, send the Starship with the astronauts to the moon
Orion isn't terrible. At least it's partially reusable. But yeah, SLS is the program's biggest weakness right now.
@@ianmathwiz7 SLS will be a spectacular launcher, no doubt about it. Its primary issues are its per-launch cost with everything included. And Boeing.
Yes, I'm a SpaceX fanboy. But I meant what I just said about SLS. And Boeing (it's SO sad for me to see how far they've fallen)
awesome job Simon although the rl10 engines are on the sls second stage. And kelvin is an absolute unit and is NOT measured in degrees. I'd also love to see a starship video but maybe wait until it's first launch which would be within a month or two
I would say that, without what we learned from the Apollo project we wouldn't be anywhere near as far along in the sciences required to launching rockets efficiently.
Yeah, the author really understates the advances made by Apollo by a factor of 100.
I agree that Apollo provided huge amount of learnings, but that was still 50-60 yrs ago, and many of those engineers and management geniuses are no longer with us. Artemis is not going to be as easy as many seem to think, if launching the basic rocket configuration is anything to go by.
I do want to point out a small error: the 4 RL-10C engines are going to be the upper stage of the SLS Block 1B, basically the next development of the SLS. The first version of the SLS will use more or less the same upper stage as the Delta IV currently does. The Orion's service module will use the and updated version of the AJ-10, the same engine that you'd find on the service module of the Apollo missions, and they were also used by the Space Shuttle for orbital maneuvers. They're good engines, no need to reinvent the wheel for those.
No, PLEASE, do the 15 hour version, and cut it into segments about each part of the project. You get more content, we get more info; it’s a win/win. 🤠👍
Definitely agree Simon! I would invest 15 hours for your work. I’m 80 yrs old & have the time & interest. Go for it. 🐻🇨🇦👍🤪😎🚀
well that's a lot of work to have him do, he already has multiple channels he's doing content for.
@@alexjones50 are you getting your news from simon whistler now, come on.
Simon, another excellent video! Thank you for doing a show on Artemis. I am looking forward to the Lunar Gateway video.
One small correction that needs to be made from near the end of the video is when you said the last Apollo mission was in 1971. The last mission (Apollo 17) happened December 7-19, 1972.
Starship in one vid and the others in a second vid
Yes! Starship, even though it is still early, is an interesting subject. The whole process is very public compared to the rest of the space industry.
ua-cam.com/video/EojxThnDPng/v-deo.html
Putting man on the moon in 1969, over half a century ago was the greatest technological achievement ever. And when you consider what technology is now compared to what it was then it is even more unbelievable.
Conflict has always been a massive driver of innovation. Even if the motive behind the first landing was dubious, without that landing, none of what has followed would be possible.
EXACTLY. His shitty take kinda pissed me off
Of course it would have been made possible. Probably years later and perhaps by another country. Conflicts are always responsible for wasting money. Cooperation between countries/organisations such as in the Artemis project is way more economic and efficient because it's mainly based on science. It is science that lays the base of future projects and because of the international cooperation everybody, every country and every organisation can benefit. To give two examples: CERN and the ITER project. The only motivation to do such projects by one country is conflict (or in other words to proof I have the longest and biggest d#ck). Latest example of the benefits of cooperation between ESA and NASA was the launch of the JWST. Thanks to ESA the lifespan of this telescope has doubled because of the ingenious trajectory of the JWST. In stead of the planned 5 year, JWST can now operate more than 10 years because it needs less fuel to get to L2.
"all we are saying is perhaps we should used Apollo as a lesson as to what happens when we allow conflict to drive innovation as opposed to our curiosity"
you would think a channel like this who has covered so much from the cold war and world war two would know that necessity isn't the mother of all inventions but in fact it is bloodlust
Holy crap, his last sentence is one of the dumbest things I've heard him say. Of course conflict drives innovation. It has for humanity's entire history. Humans gonna human there Simon.
You missed the point entirely - Simon was saying that conflict drives a short burst of innovation in a mad scramble for power and once the conflict is over (someone wins) the innovation and drive ceases or drops way down.
@@efulmer8675 No I didn't miss that point at all. I'm saying that's the way it is. People innovate when the alternative is that you die.
@@MrTexasDan Whether Necessity is the mother of Invention or not was never what Simon (or I) was arguing over. Simon was lamenting that the Apollo program came out of a conflict between the US and the Soviet Union, and once it was clear that the US had won, the Apollo program and NASA's budget were axed. The US proved it was superior and it immediately became complacent.
If Apollo's and NASA's budgets were not based on conflict (and more on a continuous test of human ingenuity, like JFK suggested in his Rice speech) then there wouldn't have been a 50 year gap in space capabilities between then and now, and we would have continued exploring the Moon, potentially having settled it for decades by now if not made it to Mars.
I can’t help thinking of ‘For All Mankind’ on how we kept going and created a Moon Base in true 70s.
Great video, though I disagree that the Apollo program was done for the wrong reasons. Outpacing the Soviet juggernaut in space was a great morale boost for the entire Free World. Everyone seems to forget that the Soviets intended to dominate the whole planet.
Your rant at 3:00-4:30 was so ass backwards it’s hard to comprehend. Going to the moon was the most inspirational achievement for scientists ever. It’s hard to imagine they were able to do it with the tech they had at the time, and what it showed was mankind’s ability to overcome nearly impossible odds by working together and solving problems through engineering
This is Simon's best channel.
Casual criminalist tops all imo. Love the tangents he goes on
HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE BLAZE?!?!
@@cpt-cheese3489 am I right Peter 🤣
This is the perfect video for this channel. Yet another project way over budget and way behind schedule. Let’s shoot for 2030 guys!
Edit: latest estimate I saw was 2028, but you know….Boeing is involved.
Starship is supposed to reach orbit this year, but that is Elon time so...
@@isaackolman2861 he’s building the largest, most powerful rocket in history in a shed on the beach. Cut him a break!
@@aggiewoodie fair point, but he also said we'd have a new roadster in 2020, lol. Hes awesome though, just slow
@@isaackolman2861 considering what he's doing I wouldn't call it slow. It feels slow because he tells us overly optimistic timelines
@@isaackolman2861 *I mean it wasn’t like there was a global pandemic decimating our supply-chains…*
It warms my heart to hear Simon get on board the Freedom Unit train! Lolol
Gotta point out that it's not "degrees Kelvin". It's just Kelvin. For example, absolute zero is 0 Kelvin, not 0 degrees Kelvin.
Looking at the Orion module, I can't help but think of Kerbal Space Program. That legit looks like something Matt Lowne or Scott Manley would build.
i think you have it backwards :)
its a real shame they are throwing away those RS-25 engines. they were made to be reusable with the shuttle and now we're just gonna let them burn up.
Great work Simon! Amazing delivery as always. From a fellow UA-cam creator, I tip my hat to your style!
An informative and interesting video, thank you! I'd love to see a video on the HLS Starship. By the way, the last Apollo lunar landing mission ended in December 1972, not 1971.
ua-cam.com/video/EojxThnDPng/v-deo.html
That’s the bit of the very last mission when Walter Cronkite apparently asked “ what’s that square shaped thing in the background ? “ before communication were temporarily interrupted. Thank the gods for technically aware videos where armchair nonsense warriors can’t steal the narrative although I was only 4 & woke in the middle of the night last time so can’t wait to see it again . 👍
you should definitely do a video on the b-36 peacemaker, "4 burning, 6 turning" its an absolute beast of an aircraft
Fun fact: at certain points the ISS crew are the closest humans to people on certain islands and outposts.
Also, at least to me, it's shocking how many people don't realize just how close the ISS is to earth. It averages ~250 miles up. On clear nights if you know where to look, you can see it with the naked eye zooming by. Same with the Starlink satellites.
Not very surprising. They're only about 100 km above the surface
@thegamingpigeon3216 brother we know how far away 400km is
I just realized I've seen or heard Simon every day for the last 7 years. That's more than my own mother.
Have you ever seen Simon and your mother in the same room? Just saying....
You need to call your mum.
@@tonyatthebeach
Conspiracy Theory: Simon Whistler IS Chris Betts' Mom.
Call your mom. 🤗💙😅
@@LiquidShadows Yes! 😅😅😅
Grateful for this video. Excellent description of risks, threats and mitigation techniques. Exploration and curiosity is fundamental to humanity. Artemis is a very exciting project. I'm looking forward to our future on the Moon and eventually Mars. Comment: Neil Armstrong since corrected that audio did not capture correctly his first words, whether uttered or not, intended to be...One small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.🤓
Can't wait for the Starship video, which will make you realize the Artemis will most probably look different when the largest rocket ever built (Which is Starship not the SLS)
ua-cam.com/video/EojxThnDPng/v-deo.html
5:00 SLS
9:41 Orion Module (end of ad)
A) SLS
1st Stage - (4x RS-25D/E engines + 2 boosters) - We are at Earth's orbit!
2nd Stage - A single RL10B engine - Hohmann's Transfer Orbit, whatever that is - We are at Moon's orbit!
B) Orion - Astronauts live in this. It will stay at Moon's orbit when they descend in HLS, and after they ascend in it, take them to earth.
C) HLS (Starship) - Methylox boosters, for landing and starting. Wait I even wrote about them!
"That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind." There was a little static that covered up the 'a'...or, under the stressful circumstances he forgot to say the 'a'.
I would love to get Simon's reaction to the recent launch of SLS and Artemis 1, first mission back to the Moon. It would be incredible to get his reaction to all of this that just recently happened.
14:10 Nope! The disaster was caused by the pure oxygen atmosphere in the capsule.
Correction, was caused by a spark in a pure oxygen environment. The oxygen didn't cause the disaster. The spark did.
Apollo did have scientific benefit, especially near the end. Lunar rocks are still the subject of much study. Also, we still use the mirrors left behind for calibration of many kinds.
17:36 The European Service Module is using a single AJ10-190 engine, which provides 33 kilonewtons of thrust. This is the same type of engine that was used on the Space Shuttle's Orbital Maneuvering System. The four RL10C engines will be used on the Exploration Upper Stage - a larger SLS upper stage which is still in development.
I always wished the Shuttle launches included inflatable 'Accordion pack' Space Station segments. Once enough had been placed in orbit, they could be assembled into a 'Ring Station' with a Nuclear power or solar energy array in the center. Once 'Spun Up' it would provide a synthetic gravity environment for scientists and mitigate the problems of zero G's on spacefarers... It would be super cool to see 50's Sci-Fi predictions come true!...
I would be interested to see a video on the SpaceX Booster and Starship program.
FYI, the entire ship when assembled is called Starship, When separate it is booster and Starship. Think of corn, when it's in a field on the stalk it is called corn, when it is on your plate it is still called corn, even though it is separated from the stalk. "Borrowed" from The Everyday Astronaut.
ua-cam.com/video/EojxThnDPng/v-deo.html
Born and raised on the space coast and I assure you these machines are damn near magical
"...what happens when we allow conflict to drive innovation as opposed to our own curiosity." We need a t shirt and a meme for this. Also yes, that would be a great video and I'm looking forward to the next one as well.
"As a lesson as to what happens when we allow conflict to drive innovation, as opposed to curiosity" - the lesson here is that conflict drives innovation *significantly faster* than curiosity does. See also: nearly every major technological breakthrough in modern era. Even stuff as fundamental to a North American audience as the colonisation of the Americas was driven by European conflict. Apollo wasn’t somehow worse because it was driven by political conflict not curiosity, it entirely *happened* because it was it was driven by conflict, and not by curiosity. The lesson is that innovation is a peace dividend of war, and it that an innovation arose through conflict should not diminish the innovation.
4:12 Ian Malcom would be proud. I was fully expecting a cut to the best jurassic park meme here.
I'd really like to see an episode on the SpaceX Starship project, and it would be nice to see a spitball of the levels of investment we've seen playing out in Texas.
ua-cam.com/video/EojxThnDPng/v-deo.html
Do a video on Starship please
ua-cam.com/video/EojxThnDPng/v-deo.html
I was wondering how you were going to visualize the particles. That bunker made of shotgun shells was perfect.
It still brings joy to my heart to have been around to see the Apollo missions, even if I was barely old enough to understand them. I'm glad we're FINALLY getting back into the game. Even as a kid, I was greatly saddened to see it all end.
I do like your assessment of just how risky the Apollo program was. Apollo 11 nearly had a catastrophic computer crash while they were landing on the moon, Buzz Aldrin accidently broke off the switch needed to arm in Lunar Ascent Engine, Apollo 12 was struck by lightning twice on lift-off which nearly fried the computer, Apollo 13 was an incredibly lucky story I don't need to tell you, go watch the movie, Apollo 15 had a parachute fail to deploy properly, etc. There were a lot of close calls with those missions, so a stronger emphasis on safety is not a bad idea.
When the ISS retires, they should upgrade a few life support systems, stock it food and move it to a higher sustainable orbit. That way it can kinda be like a near by life boat for the on going moon missions.
Yes. A space station would be useful.
Good point, but what for? What value would the ISS provide in the event of an emergency?
@@josephc.9520 Could be put in a extream orbit incase a lunar or mars mission runs into trouble. Not sure how practical that is. Just a thought thoe.
Every time I consider this project I am filled with an urge to shout FINALLY!
Finally going out there and exploring, and doing it in peace and cooperation rather than to prove whose d*ck is bigger.
Well, for now anyway. I plan to hold out hope that Artemis leads the way not just to the Moon but to a better world for everybody. So many things came out of the Apollo missions and the projects before them - things that weren't necessarily intended to affect the world in general, of course. But they did change the world, they did make huge differences in the lives of people in the USA and outside of it, GOOD changes. A wonderful thing to imagine, that this phase of humans' ventures into the universe might bring even more, even better changes.
I'd like you to do a program on "the safe route through the Van Allen Belts". 😉
This is exactly where all of the missions to the moon fall over.
As much as I would love to see a Starship Megaproject; I would love for you to wait until they achieve their first orbital flight. Be a nice beginning, middle and end. When you do get around to it, make sure to cover the building of Starbase. That's been one hell of a mega project to watch. NASA Spaceflight channel on YT.
The Apollo program and the 3-man spacecraft were given the Apollo name before they had been set the goal of the Moon. It was seen as a grand program for the exploration of space after Mercury though it lacked a good definition of exactly where in space it would explore. Once the lunar goal was set, they had to work out how a cone-shaped module with windows facing upwards and designed for entry into Earth's atmosphere was going to land on the lunar surface beneath them. This eventually led to the adoption of a separate lander. Recommended reading: Chariots for Apollo - www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/cover.html
I thought the apollo fire (well actualy Gemini) was really due to having 100% oxygen environemne within the cabin?
YESSSS!!! Of course do an episode on the starship/moonship. 😃👍
Angus and Simon,
Why I like and highly appreciate your videos?
Your scripts and delivery are concise and pertinent, with a healthy dose of humour.
Thanks for your efforts guys.
I understand why it happened, but the over-saturation of space travel and achievements in the late 60's and early 70's was upsetting in the sense that it led to space fatigue from the general public, which in turn led to massive cuts to NASA funding. The Voyager program did fine, better than fine actually. But man, that Grand Tour of the Solar System would've really been something to behold. We can only hope that if and when NASA is presented with another opportunity to visit such planets, they don't pass it up.
My favorite quote from the Apollo program was from Pete Conrad, Commander of Apollo 12: "Whoopee! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me."
Allowing conflict to motivation our innovations might not sound as good when you're out there virtue signaling, but the fact remains that we are all benefitting greatly from the innovations that spawned out of conflict. Nuance and a fair representation of history is key when making "ought" claims like that.
APOLLO left the moon for the last time in 1972, not 1971 as stated several times in this video.
According to Armstrong himself, he said, "...for A man..."
It's just his Southern (American) accent that makes it sound like he said, "...for man...". The way he talks, he mixed the end of one word with the beginning of the next: "...fruh man..."
So, unfortunately for all of the wannabe revisionist historians out there, the phrase WAS grammatically correct.
Where did you see that? I remember seeing a video many years ago, Armstrong told reporters if they could put the 'a' in brackets in the quote. "... for [a] man ..." since he intended to say it but heard himself not say it.
More likely the clipped “a” was due to the voice activated microphone.
"...computer system that is orders of magnitude more powerful than Apollo." No kidding... but my phone meets that description! LOL
4:13 Simon paraphrasing Jurassic Park!!!
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
Actually not entirely true, NASA had big expectations and plans to keep going to the moon, but their budget was cut. Apollo missions were horrible expensive and Nixon just didn't think it was worth it. Who knows what the world would be like today in terms of technology had their budget not been cut.
I agree with you but I think the larger comment here is on the Why we did it. Most people were board with space in the end. We had beaten the Russians so why keep going? In this sense we as a nation/ species only went to the moon solely to say FIRST. With that being done we had no further intentions. Luckily NASA fought for its survival and we can finally pursue the intentions that Nixon squashed
We probably wouldn't have much differently technology than we do now, the tech advancements created by NASA were/are geared towards space exploration, very little of what NASA does translates to everyday life here on Earth. Don't get me wrong I wish NASA's budget wasn't cut but NASA's experimental propulsion systems don't do much for anyone that doesn't get the opportunity to go into space.
@@nicmainville9954 Not true at all. Technology developed by NASA’S contractors for space travel has given the world a wealth of knowledge which has created countless inventions, materials and technologies that was later used in the civilian world. Dealing with the harsh conditions of living in space for any length of time is very challenging and would usher in many technologies. Even now NASA is trying to develop a super fabric tech for spacesuits to withstand the abrasive moon dust.
@@martinschulz9381 do you honestly believe none of the material sciences used by NASA weren't already in development or would not have came to be if not for NASA?
@@nicmainville9954 Actually yes, by no means not all the tech was developed just for space, but a lot was. Not just the Apollo missions, but satellite, solar power, traveling to other planets etc. Just do a Google search on it. Not just NASA but other space agencies.
A lot of the world changing technologies were also developed for military use. Now NASA is trying to have a super fabric or technology developed for space suits to withstand the abrasive moon dust. They have gone to private companies, individuals universities etc. for help and ideas.
Great video, especially for those who are not up to speed on Artemis. SpaceX' Starship development program would surely prove to be an awesome "Megaprojects" topic as well, and given it's still got a long way to go, could surely be a multi-part endeavor. For a private company to be doing something so monumental and making such rapid progress, is simply awe-inspiring.
Mild corrections:
- 6:18 "most powerful rocket to ever launch" - Nope. Its just SLS Block 1 39 MN vs. Starship Booster ~72 MN (N1, without a finished launch, - 42,4 MN)
- 7:38 Orion will, most likely, not use the hohmann transfer orbit
- 23:25 "Lunar gateway - easily the most ambitious part". Don't think so. LOP-G is a relativ simple and relative cheap design. SLS and Orion will be much harder/expensive to develop. HLS is much more ambitious
EDIT
- Missed the 14:10 error: Pure Oxygen (+ bad wires + hard to unlock door ) were the cause of the death astronauts, not the hydrogen fuel
Well, none of those rockets have been launched....whoever launch first will be the most powerful rocket to launch...is not liket that??
@@javierderivero9299 "to ever launch" is future, right?
@@javierderivero9299 but: right.
And SLS will be the first one
A couple of minor nuts. Around 10 min mark is stock footage of Boeing moving it's CST-100 capsule around not the Orion. And then during the European SM discussion around 17:50, I don't believe the SM has food storage. It is unpressurized section that the astronauts will not have topical access into during a mission, but it does provide vital commodities for life support (air and water).
One other point about Apollo: Kennedy had approached Kruschev about doing a joint moon landing, but Kruschev wasn't keen on the idea, believing that the USSR would succed in their own right. It wouldn't be until Apollo-Soyuz that we finally got that joint mission. Then there was Shuttle-MIR and now the ISS, all following from Kennedy's original notion of cooperation to alleviate tensions.
Wow, I’ve never heard such a cynical take on Apollo! (Still love your content tho.)
Oi, that’s not what Armstrong said bruv. A man. He said a man
Right? Annoys me to no end that most people don’t even know that’s actually what he said
Simon, one thing to mention here, in regards to Neil Armstrong's famous line. It's not well known, but the first part of his utterance consisted of "One small step for *A* man”, which would make it grammatically correct. Neil himself has commented on this on several occasions. The reason for the missing syllable is simple - radio interference.
Artemis is gonna be absolutely amazing. I can't believe we are so close to the first launch!!
It's exciting yes, but just consider the costs of any delays - and we've had two scrubbed launches already.
For all its ambitious goals and multiple phases, NASA is publically funded and Artemis has many, many moving parts, many of which are still being worked out, and any one of which could cause severe delays and cost overruns.
It's very early days, and I'm expecting the scope of Artemis to be cut back as it progresses - but a successful first launch would be a good start I think.
One small correction. Neal Armstrong later corrected the quote. He said "one small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind.
Good video.
At 9:59 the Capsul is not the Orion but Starliner from Boeing as part of comercial human launching to the iss. But overall pretty good summary of the programm.😀
OK, I cant be the only guy who remembers that "cosmic rays" from the Van Allen belt area gave the Fantastic Four their amazing powers. I mean, basic science. Repeated shortly after by Ivan Kragov, giving us the Red Ghost and his Super Apes. I think we're missing an amazing opportunity by not flying STRAIGHT into them cosmic ray belts. Astronauts are such weenies, right?
All kidding aside, I am old enough to remember Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz, Viking landers, Voyagers, the first space shuttle reveal (Star Trek influenced the name...Enterprise), Hubble, shuttle tragedies, International Space Station successes, along with all the probes, rovers, and even landing on comets now. Always felt it was a tragedy that we perched on the edge of moon bases, Mars bases, and true interplanetary colonization, then lost our way in the 1970s particularly. Heartened now that we're looking at colonization and settlements.
I mean, if one guy is OK to launch a sports car convertible into space...we got a chance to get back to the Final Frontier.
Another great episode, SImon. Thank you
With SPACEX we do not need the Gate Way. #1 take starship to moon after loading with fuel. #2 fly to moon with 150 tons of fuel making equipment drilling , work trucks, solar panels set up and landing pad built from Regolith concrete. #3 Ship could stay on the surface as a temporary base or robotic landing ahead of time to set up camp, energy, communications, tranportation, hopefully fuel and water or just water in their designated crater. Land with crew ship later once every thing is set up.
That was: “That’s one small step for a man, one gigantic leap for mankind.”
Armstrong corrected the line several time, twice I saw on live TV on different channels.
He said that there was static in the radio transmission that dropped the ‘a’ from the transmission.
I think you're missing something about Apollo - the VAST majority of people working on the project thought that they would keep going. They were talking about Mars shots by the year 2000 if not earlier. They were talking about colonization, they were talking talking about how the technology could be used on Earth.
And then the US government, specifically, Richard Nixon, pulled the rug out from under them. He thought (and alas, probably correctly) that pushing Apollo was no longer enough the be politically beneficial to him, and that its costs would work against him.
So the majority of the legacy of the Apollo program had to do with the 9 times return on investment in new technologies, new companies and education.
Americans lost the taste for that kind of adventure. I have no doubt if it had continued at the rate it was going (or even some reasonable percentage of that rate), we would have colonies on the Moon, multiple technologies for supporting them, and yeah, we probably would have had our first Mars shot.
Perhaps the easiest way to get money for projects of this size is to call them defense moves, but the majority of people working on this were scientists and engineers, *NOT* soldiers. The people doing this really were doing it for the same reasons we are doing Artemis now.
Its just that we now understand that it isn't enough to jump, you need to build the ladder from the ground up.
Armstrong's was grammatically correct. There was an audio dropout. He actually said, "One small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind."
Best description of Apollo I’ve ever heard. I watched the liftoff from my backyard. It was incredible.
Part of the reason that going to LEO (low Earth orbit) takes such a large percentage of the total ∆v is because orbital velocity is about 70% of escape velocity. The difference in fuel consumption is even greater, since early on, the craft has a much greater wet mass, so it takes more thrust to achieve the same amount of acceleration.
Savannah River Nuclear Site (SRNS)
Formerly know as SRP (Savannah river Plant). Aka by the locals as the Bomb Plant, just outside of Aiken,SC.
Plutonium for nukes.
Mox
Dump site for nuclear waste and rubble from fallouts.