NASA Isn't Telling Us Something About The Moon

Join the official Space Race Discord server and meet like minded people today! - / discord
Last Video: Why NASA Is Developing A NEW Nuclear Rocket!
• Why NASA Is Developing...
►Become a member today: / @thespaceraceyt
►Support the channel by purchasing from our merch store: shop.theteslas...
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► X/Twitter: / thespaceraceyt
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Tesla Space: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslasp...
Business Email: [e-mail]
#Spacex #Space #Mars

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

Join the official Space Race Discord server and meet like minded people today! - discord.gg/eM9nES3nUz

[@joemaddoxrx7]

Radiation. The magnetosphere. Everything you said here I've called out for years on my channel. Glad you finally caught up a little. Fairytales and faith are all you have. Told you all so.

[@cristodulolucian4877]

The buget for all Nasa it s 30 bilion Last moon mishion was 300 bilion dolar and dolar have diferent value....this it s your respond...simple

[@grunty999]

we are from Venus and the nepheline are from mars they have little in number but massive science they had the power to make a clone body and transplant a brain when mars was healthy now they don't have the Resorces but they still possess powerful minds able to send influential thoughts and influence decision's on earth. like i said its very complicated .the ark should make sense to all we cant move all life on earth but we could make a small vessel and save our life and the genitics on the planet if another was close which is not available this time third strike .nasa may know much of this and are exploring the moon and mars for evidence of life . the bible keeps me way ahead of the game .false prophet

[@julianostadlmann]

Too hard yourself, you’re not stupid.

[@lawrenceallen8096]

SpaceX will go it alone. Why does SpaceX need NASA? To spend $4 billion to get a 4-man capsule to lunar orbit? SpaceX can do that with Falcon heavy (if BIDEN Bureaucracy won't allow humans on Starship). Folks: If you have the lander, you have the landing. NASA just doesn't have the right stuff anymore.

[@dedrakuhn6103]

If nasa needs more computing power than the Apollo missions, my cell phone is available to do the calculations

[@JimmyRussell-zd5qo]

Lol

[@RolandAdams-h4m]

I have a few Sinclair ZX Spectrum sitting around. They have some extra power too.

[@zeroblack406]

Lamrp

[@msimon6808]

Is you're phone rad hard?

[@msimon6808]

@@RolandAdams-h4m And a C3h to you too !! hi hi

[@ambrosemorgan7022]

We won't have to bring any food to the Moon on our next trip because we can order out from the local Chinese Russian or Indian restaurants.

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

lol

[@viarnay]

They have never put a foot on the Moon yet..

[@therollingpalankeen]

@@viarnay You don't understand irony, don't you?

[@neightarch]

Best comment by a government contract dollar amount

[@tomholroyd7519]

I for one am looking forward to visiting a ramen noodle shop located in an underground cavern on the moon.

[@robertmcgreevy2048]

Oh come on.. we went to the moon in 1969 in a 65 Chevy and two rolls of duct tape..

[@scottgauley7722]

The more time goes on, the more skeptical I am we ever landed on the moon in the first place. The fact we could do this 60 years ago, but can't even figure it out nowadays is highly suspect. With tech and engineering more advanced nowadays you'd figure we would have figured out a faster and more efficient way back to the moon. But as it turns out we may be trying to figure it out for the first time for real...

[@NoWonderDragon]

@@scottgauley7722 The Apollo program had almost unlimited resources. Infinite money and 400 000 people involved. When the cold war was over funding was cut and space tech didn't really improve much, if at all, until recently. Btw, the Soviets monitored the Apollo landing and never questioned it (which they would have loved to do).

[@deertbahg7797]

@@NoWonderDragon lol moron

[@AllHailSeizure90]

@@scottgauley7722 just accept it didn't and move on... the government lies more than it doesn't

[@robertholle5599]

That was a Pontiac Fiero in Fast and Furious 9 🚗. News flash, they made it to Near Earth Orbit complete with duct tape and deep sea diving suits.🤣

[@slyktech1860]

I think you are forgetting that Spacex Falcon 9 a very skinny vehicle lands on a barge in the middle of the ocean every other day now.

[@javaman7199]

I think you are forgetting that we are not sending the Spacex Falcon 9 to the moon.

[@michaelimbesi2314]

I think you are forgetting that the barge deck is a very flat surface with a known altitude, that SpaceX still blows up Falcon 9s occasionally, that it took them quite a long time to get it right, that SpaceX has never landed a rocket even close to this large, and that this is something that has to go right the first time.

[@yllbardh]

well, it's about time that they figured it out.

[@kevinhonomichl9999]

the return to the moon is like fusion power, it’s always just 5 years away.

[@CosmicSkewer]

we need to go to the moon to harvest the isotopes needed for fusion power anyways

[@synchc]

@@CosmicSkewer I don't think that's a thing. The whole concept was just a loose scientific proposal that entered the sci-fi zeitgeist and stayed there. Much in the same way as space elevators have, for eg. If you're interested, Frank Close did a famous piece for Physics World called Fears over Factoids. We don't know if there is any H3 in the lunar regolith in any practical quantity, even if it is; mining it would be well outside our engineering and economic prowess and even if it wasn't; H3 is nearly completely useless for the types of fusion reactors we haven't even been able to get running with positive Q yet. There are advocates and even a recent start-up but it's little more than blind optimism and an R&D punt, imo.

[@CosmicSkewer]

@@synchc It is very much a thing, the moon is the largest stock pile of He3 we have and is an extremely necessary stepping stone for the future of fusion. It’s not as nearly as loose a scientific concept as you think it is and we most definitely need it

[@lawrencefrost9063]

stupid comparison

[@skynet5828]

​@@CosmicSkewer You're confusing deuterium and tritium with helium-3. There's much more deuterium on earth than on the moon and tritium is basically rare everywhere (due to its short half-life).

[@semontreal6907]

I'm willing to bet anybody here any amount of money that you will not see Man on the Moon by 2026

[@Almneur]

You won't see man on the Moon even by 2999. It's simply too risky.

[@Amine-gz7gq]

or even by 3000

[@mach3k3000]

China surely will put men on moon by 2029​@@Amine-gz7gq

[@axelbagi100]

@@Amine-gz7gq In my opinion we could see people on the moon by the end of this century, if things stay relatively the same (but im an optimist). And by 3000 humanity will wipe itself out. (Yes, I do consider myself an optimist, but the state of the world in the means of political, economical and global enviroment sense is in a freefall).

[@VeezyLife]

Oh buddy we are not landing back on the moon til AT LEAST 2030.. i mean we dont even have a freaking CONCEPT PHOTO of the ssupposed Lunar Gateway space station that they've given us ZERO info and how TF they're going to construct

[@rtarz5191]

Now you have to do a vid on why the Apollo rocket was able to do it on its own and why we aren't using a similar plan.

[@Almneur]

Apollo was a hoax, bro.

[@ChrisFord-wh1gl]

Cuz Hollywood Duh 🙄

[@tpresto9862]

The Artemis program wants to send astronauts to the moon for 1 or 2 weeks and maybe longer. Apollo's longest time spent on the moon was slightly more than 3 days. All of the hardware required to do that would be too large for the Apollo rocket (the Saturn V) to handle.

[@newforestpixie5297]

they say it’s easier to start from scratch than somehow re activate or interpret 55 year old ideas. Jesus if these plans are simpler no wonder they don’t wanna do it the hard way 👽🐢( ok i appreciate this mission has much bigger objectives but until it’s successful it’s borderline science fiction to me)

[@dmitrij1579]

Взлёт с луны физически не возможен. Кто захочет лететь без обратного билета? Проще в студии снимать кино.

[@kamakaziozzie3038]

For some reason. I’m pretty sure Elon Musk could explain the nuances of space flight better than 99.9% of people reading this now (1:50)

[@michaelimbesi2314]

I think you forget that Elon Musk is basically a hype man and isn’t actually doing any of the engineering on any of these.

[@Kemulnitestryker]

We put men on the moon 55 years ago using 4 bit, hand wired, analog computers. And yet, here in the 21st Century, we can't look at the all the blueprints and data from The Apollo Program? Your average gaming PC has more computing power that NASA had total.

[@spanke2999]

why do you guys think this isn't an option? Of course it would be possible. The same way it is possible to build a 'new' Corvette C1 today. The difference is, back in 1962 it cost 4,000 USD, today you get one for around 100,000 USD and if you want to build all the parts from scratch originally, you can add a zero with ease! Stuff gets much much more expensive, if you have to build not only the parts, but also the machines that build these parts and the materials that were used and so on! If you want to use modern stuff, you have to adjust plans. if you have to adjust plans, it kinda gets a new thing ... and so on. Also... no politician wants to risk astronauts. Nobody in any government would agree to a flight, if the chance is 50/50.

[@andyartze4529]

It's not about computing power or craftsmenship. The fact of the matter is that Apollo was a set of short term and incredibly dangerous missions that we just do not want to do today. There were so many risks from the lunar regolith, guidance systems, communication systems, and propulsion systems of the crew module and launch vehicle, to the point that no one would certify it to fly today. Add to the fact that we're trying to take more people and massive amounts of cargo for longer period of time and this mission is just as impossible today as it was 50 years ago

[@TheGreatAmphibian]

Apollo was a dead end. It was only pure luck that a missions wasn’t lost and they didn’t achieve anything.

[@Floucensuremoi]

@@andyartze4529 In a word, the technology of the 1960s-1970s never existed and still does not exist.

[@michaelvittori8525]

@@TheGreatAmphibian Spinoffs

[@huntergatherer4223]

Imagine how hard it was in the 60's with all the computer power of a Texas instruments calculator. Amazing😂

[@jtbaying2312]

Not Possible.

[@zvast]

so? Two Voyagers made a lot more complicated navigation, also in times of early computers.

[@Fido-vm9zi]

Truly!

[@carlosidelone8064]

@@zvast But they didn't have fragile biological specimens on board, going through all that radiation, don't you know ?

[@zvast]

@@carlosidelone8064 They themselves are a fragile specimens.

[@augustusbetucius2931]

It's amazing and impressive that humans went to the Moon, landed, and return to Earth with a fraction of a fraction of the technology we have today. Orson Welles and others have spoken of how creativity and solution finding is increased by the presence of limitations, in the face of hard determination. I also have to think people were simply smarter fifty-five years ago. We certainly had a better education system, and a better educated populace then.

[@Magic-mushrooms113]

And more money.

[@michaeldavid6832]

And lots of VFX artists doing practical effects. They're all digital now.

[@SeerSeekingTruth]

We have never been to the moon…

[@sungodjrspot]

@@SeerSeekingTruth thank you

[@jamesmskipper]

I started working at NASA MSC (now JSC) in June 1963 and worked in life support vacuum chamber testing for for 35. I have no experience with boosters, spacecraft, etc., but I have an idea how government works. When it was announced that the Shuttle program would end, I predicted it would be 2020 before we launched our own crews again. (I think I have a document attesting that.) When it was announced the lunar landing would be moved up from '28 to '24, I said they would be lucky to make '28. I like the idea of another flight to the moon with time spent in orbit (an advance from Apollo 8), but nothing looks good about the plans for landing. :(

[@Kudagraz]

how did apollo do what artemis cant

[@jamesmskipper]

This is only a guess but a Google search would probably provide the official explanation. Artemis did what was planned No reason to plan to do what Apollo did. But the actual landing plan is way behind what I would consider a reasonable schedule. ​@@Kudagraz

[@jamesmskipper]

@@Kudagraz What did Apollo do that Artemis can't?

[@Kudagraz]

@@jamesmskipper land.

[@jamesmskipper]

@@Kudagraz Got it! Of course, Artemis is just beginning. As I added, perhaps in too much detail, I have my doubts about the proposed landers.

[@timsunderland5153]

That first 2 minutes reminded me of ‘The Underpants Gnomes’!! Hahaha Phase 1: collect underpants Phase 2: ???? Phase 3: profit. Hehehehe 🧙🏻‍♀️

[@sweetpealee056]

😂😂😂

[@jonomacd]

My view is that Artemis is screwed. BUT it is a forcing function to make orbital refueling happen. I really want orbital refueling to work. It unlocks so much of the solar system.

[@richardbloemenkamp8532]

Starship has to become a real economic success before this level of orbital refueling becomes economically viable. The need for more than 10 refueling flights requires very frequent flights of Starships and seems extremely expensive. I suspect problems and delays may eventually lead to a cancelation of the concept once Musk has stepped down. Maybe a Starship can be used to fly to the Moon but the landing and ascent from the Moon will probably need to be a very light vehicle like it was in the Apollo days. I don't see the budget for building a real colony on the Moon.

[@Asterra2]

@@richardbloemenkamp8532 Why does it strike you as expensive? By the time orbital refueling is a force to be reckoned with, Starship launches will be approaching the target cost of $2 million. Then it's just fuel. Starship Block 3 will be a thing, if not even something further down the line, and that means 200 tons of fuel per go, reducing the mandated launch volume to perhaps 7? That's to get 200 tons to somewhere in the solar system. Don't think there will be customers for that kind of capability? At a price potentially lower than 200 million? A single SLS is 2.5 billion and takes 2 years to manifest. Optics really help in understanding this topic.

[@rh_BOSS]

Refueling is just one part of the puzzle. We also need to figure out nuclear thermal propulsion. Going anywhere beyond the Moon using a chemical rocket is a fool's errand.

[@thorin1045]

@@Asterra2 starship launches will never approach the realistically would be insanely good cost of 200 million. methane cost 1K-4K per ton, starship+booster eats a casual 5000 ton (methane and oxygen, but not really relevant), so in the range of 5 million to 20 million just for the fuel, but yes, for you it will be cut in half and everyone will work for free at spacex.

[@Asterra2]

@@thorin1045 Huh? SpaceX will be refining their own methane and oxygen. With the amount they're going to be needing, _of course_ they will be. I don't see how market prices are relevant to that.

[@andyartze4529]

5:01 It's important to note that the Dynetics wasn't chosen mainly because the lander had large negative mass margins in early designs. Meaning that the lander would only work if it lost weight as more of the design was figured out, which is highly problematic and unreasonable at that point in the design. Besides that, Dynetics lacked a lot of the technical expertise that both Blue and SpaceX had

[@JoeOvercoat]

Sure, but ultimately, the contract went to SpaceX through the soul, action of a woman who immediately afterwards retired from the government and went to work for SpaceX.

[@Asterra2]

@@JoeOvercoat And here's the inconvenient context that was left out: For doing her job in picking literally the only bid that could be afforded with Artemis's budget, NASA demoted her, and replaced her with the troglodyte who had overseen Orion's >10 years of stagnation and bloat. Nobody would stay with an employer who kicked them in the face like that. Again, you may have had a narrative you wanted to spread, but it's really not fair to everyone else to tell half the story.

[@mikldude9376]

@@Asterra2What if he’s right ?

[@Sigkete]

They fixed that issue.

[@Asterra2]

@@mikldude9376 Whatcha mean? What he said is true. He also framed it in a way to make it conspiratorial, in case that wasn't obvious. Kathy Lueders was in charge of Artemis vis-a-vis finding a commercial option to handle the moon lander, but the budget for that was about $3 billion. Dynetics had a lander _on paper_ for $12 billion. National Team had a highschool plastic mockup of a lander for $6 billion. And SpaceX was well into the development of Starship, for under $3 billion. There was no choice to be made. SpaceX won. This evidently went against NASA's (and National Team's / Boeing's) plans, so she was promptly demoted, as I noted earlier. This was an outrage, of course, so she quit. SpaceX saw an opportunity to collect a freshly available, experienced leader in space (and no doubt tweak NASA's nose for doing something so transparently biased) and picked her up.

[@Kenny_cuh]

The starship part is like telling a child Santa doesn’t exist to a spacex fan

[@eltrainlane]

You said it better than what was in my head. I'm so tired of these billionaires insinuating themselves into stuff that doesn't need them. I wish they'd just pay their taxes...

[@5893MrWilson]

​@@eltrainlaneElon pays a 53% tax rate. He paid the largest tax bill by a single individual in history

[@rustyshackleford3190]

@@5893MrWilson The knuckle draggers think Elon should pay some "fair" fraction of his estimated net worth as opposed to just year-to-year capital gains. *sigh* The education system in the US is probably the most complicated and least effective in the world.

[@DamianHallbauer]

i thnk the draco can be uses or modified or kind of a crew switch done.. its on redit the practical plans were 4-6 years old. its the ecologists that are really disturbed about the oceans and the sustainability .. its not co2 its methane. its hard to argue any use of energy doesnt create heat. teh greenhouse gasses are going to stay for a long time .. methane is 30x faster at making it worse. sharks will take 50 years to recover if we killed none. without them bacteria eat the organic whale fall instead.. the oxygen from form 70% from the phytoplankton, now we see a stingray increase , and shark decline and then the rasy will starve and then .. etc. the bees are in trouble and the pollen is gettig on our stupid , hot solar array. we are like a person drowning , going direct to the shore , ( carbon zero) ?? when doing nothing or going in anther direction ( UP) would be better. you can predict the weather 2 weeks out , you cant climate engineer it, your mistakes affect the whole planet. so this e moon is brilliant. elon is going to put it up. NASA has to pay but id like to see private investors going in and not just day trading on the launches. if we have ww3 .. money means nothign. EVs and all AI depend on the Grid. so Nokia was a 4G contract for the moon. this is going to happen or we go extinct. 8 billion people in 200 yeas... 5 billion since 1960s when it slowed or inflected.. that kind of spike means a crash to holding wiht is 6 billion and not wiht American environmental impact, amazon prime and all that. SAAS is made to be bloated to wait our time an dtake out money . we need to get efficient, or we die. that is the new economy. fast , cheap, light. fat cats, learn to swim.

[@tortysoft]

I am a professional Santa - I exist - when I'm needed.

[@de-bodgery]

Boil-off is a significant problem with unpressurized tanks like Starship has. I've wondered about this many times. Using cryo oxygen and methane in the booster is fine. It gets burned up much faster than it can boil away. In the starahip, you need pressure vessels for the fuel to keep the fuels in a liquid state despite temperatures well above boiling points of the fuel.

[@de-bodgery]

I wonder why SpaceX isn't trying nitro-methane as a rocket fuel? It already carries its own oxygen so you need much less to get combustion going. It gets used in top fuel dragsters for this reason and it's already liquid at Earth ground temperatures. It's already a rocket fuel that moved to racing. I think this comes down to re-usability. Nitromethane when it burns does make some corrosive by products and some amount of residues. Burning pure methane does not.

[@sethjansson5652]

​@de-bodgery They want to use Methalox because it can be sourced on Mars. Starship is ultimately a Mars rocket, not a Moon rocket.

[@de-bodgery]

@@sethjansson5652 Yes...I knew this...just wondering out loud. Of course "sourcing" methane on Mars is a hurdle yet to be overcome. Sure the chemistry works out, but you still have to make it in HUGE quantities! And the same problem would exist for any other fuel.

[@sethjansson5652]

@de-bodgery Not necessarily huge quantities. Starship becomes significantly more efficient on the surface of Mars thanks to a much higher thrust to weight. If SpaceX can make the Starship depart Earth to reach Mars, vice-versa will have much lower requirements. ie. Less fuel. Getting a stable production site on Mars will no doubt be challenging, but thanks to the amount of tons a starship can carry, especially with block II and even block III, constructing refineries logistically speaking should be almost instantaneous. So long as they can make hardware suited for the conditions of Mars.

[@shanent5793]

Starship's tanks are pressurized, they have to be to keep the pumps from cavitating. Higher pressures would make the tanks heavier so there will be a trade off between how much fuel boils off v. the extra fuel needed to put a heavier tank in space. The vacuum of space is also a good insulator that will keep the propellants liquid despite the temperature. Boil-off isn't significant at higher orbits and in deep space, so they'll have to worry about freezing methane and oxygen instead.

[@MandatoryReporter2015]

Thank you for explaining how billionaires are full of sh*t yet still get billions in funding.

[@memonk11]

The starship concept is completely idiotic, from the insane multiple refueling flights, to the inevitable self-inflicted fatal damage the spacex lander will receive when it tries to leave the moon.

[@jackturner8472]

SpaceX is a horrible idea, will never work, The Falcon Rocket series is impossible, a private company cannot match any of the space agency's, The Raptor engines will never work, the physics and math are all fabricated, SpaceX is a scam. The Falcon 9 will never actually launch, SpaceX is a money laundering scam. The Falcon 9 will never ever land itself, Powered landing is literally completely impossible, let alone reuse. Ok, so they can land themselves, but it will never be profitable, SpaceX relies solely on government contract money. Falcon Heavy isn't possible, multiple landings will never happen, and the physics and mathematics are fabricated. Nasa will never choose an idea as ridiculous as Starship for a landing system. Starship will never happen, the engineers at NASA with decades of experience know the difference between real life and delusion. Starship and Super heavy booster will shake itself apart, SpaceX will never get to launch. IFT-1 blew up the pad, SpaceX is a scam and the FAA will disect it from the inside. Ok, so SpaceX won in court, but Starship will never launch again. So Starship can reach orbit, but Re-Entry is impossible!

[@masaitube]

The only way to get large quantities of tonnes out into space... is not idiotic, it is dictated by physics.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Most idiotic is when they say something without even having seen anything.

[@mvw6609]

A few years ago, people thought the idea of a reusable rocket wouldn’t work. But apparently boosters are being reused by SpaceX on a regular basis. SpaceX has said they will not be using the raptor engines for landing and takeoff on the moon. They wont need them. You are correct and that they are too powerful and they will cause damage. That’s why they won’t be using them. A quick search will show you how SpaceX plans to get starship off of the moon

[@element5377]

the landers landing/launch engines will be in the nosecone firing diagonally downward. this should blow most debris away from the vehicle, except what bounces back off of larger rocks. these engines will only be needed a short time near the surface, possibly discarded shortly after lunar launch

[@vinnylamoureux1187]

Keep in mind that the first Moon landing was all calculated using slide rules. I have a real nice one that i would love to sell. I'm sure that there are some original space engineers alove who used them. I'm 74 now, but remember clearly when it happened. Fabulous engineers those people. Thank you to all of you❤

[@ruthlessrubberducky5729]

That starship lander always made me nervous, glad I'm not the only one

[@rh_BOSS]

This is going to be such a shitshow. Especially the parts that SpaceX is responsible for.

[@jgstargazer]

ruthlessrubberducky: Me too. I'm concerned it will topple over if the ground at the landing site is not level and if it does, we will always know there are people on the moon that died.

[@tariqjohns5078]

​@@rh_BOSSWrong

[@sethjansson5652]

​@@rh_BOSSIf SpaceX can't land the first time, they'll just reiterate for the next attempt. Have you no idea how vastly different SpaceX's process is from Nasa's?

[@yugen4720]

@@rh_BOSS ... It's gonna be a shitshow because of the company currently carrying 80% of humanity's annual payload mass to space?

[@HimanshuKumar_24]

What I seriously don’t understand is we literally landed on moon like 60 years ago . Why are we starting from scratch, what happened to all the knowledge we gathered, why not build on top of that??

[@thewildcellist]

We are. There's scads that was learned from the Apollo missions that's drawn on today - by agencies mounting modern lunar forays, professors teaching orbital mechanics in universities - you name it. However, the gear itself that was used for Apollo is obsolete. Just as you wouldn't resurrect the equipment for manufacturing a Ford Model A if you wanted to build an F150.

[@Hoo88846]

Simple, because USA landed on the moon in Hollywood 50 years ago. 😂

[@thewildcellist]

@@Hoo88846 if that's the case, it'd be a good idea to contact those people I mentioned in my comment above. The thousands of scientists and engineers around the world working in the aerospace industry who are making modern lunar missions happen; the professors teaching orbital mechanics and other relevant courses in universities - all of them, to varying degrees, draw on the technical accomplishments of the Apollo program. If it was all fake and actually done in Hollywood, they should be alerted. It boggles the mind to think that some of the smartest people in the world - which they definitely are - have somehow missed this. _Hollywood._ Wow.

[@deertbahg7797]

@@thewildcellist go feltch somewhere else

[@thewildcellist]

@@deertbahg7797 I think the word you're looking for is "felch." (It's not spelled with a T.)

[@neillpowell14]

It's made of cheese. They had to change the type of cheese a few decades ago and thats why we haven't been to Mars, which is made of Mars bars, but thats a different story. The moon is more than 4 acres wide and that's a lot of cheese to have to take up there. I hear one day the aim is to make the moon entirely of fresh buffalo mozzarella, I do I hope I live to see that. Whatever cheese the moon is made of, I love it.

[@CatherineBHopkins]

It's a dairy conspiracy theory.

[@maddhatter3062]

Smoked provolone, please 🙏 😅

[@ronin4713]

@@maddhatter3062 If it's smoked provolone, America will have no choice but go up there and "liberate" it...

[@RAYRAAMSALU]

At least on the Sunnyside you will be able to set up a toasted cheese sandwich cafe.

[@nyoodmono4681]

They found gorgonzola nuggets now on Mars!

[@coolbanana165]

Honestly, it seems a bit mental that they went with landing a rocket on the Moon, instead of a normal lander.

[@Bandit-is8zi]

I will finish homework tomorrow, I promise

[@markrainford1219]

Dog ate mine.

[@jimseibyl5140]

I honestly think a starship moon lander is a horrible idea. It doesn’t make any sense to land something like that, seems like an unnecessary risk. I hope I’m wrong but Musk builds a reality distortion field that puts Steve Jobs to shame.

[@Sammyli99]

DUDE sound like a GEN-Z who just realised he is in the TRUMAN show, BUT still loves the lights and the set.

[@reardenbentley9622]

WHAT the fuck ARE you even talking ABOUT

[@Hevach]

Dynetics' lander was not practical. It had one glaring issue: the engines were more efficient than anything thats ever existed at that thrust level by a factor larger than the history of spaceflight has improved such engines. It bounded on impossible. Dynetics didn't have the expertise to even try to develop this and when asked how they just assumed *somebody* would invent it in time, which is why they scored so low on the technical and management categories. Blue Origin's was potentially practical, but their failure was that the budget wasn't there to pay for the lander and Blue Origin was trying to back door themselves into a costs plus style contract. Starship is impractical as hell, but was being developed already and had wide enough use cases that SpaceX would certainly continue to develop most of the Starship system regardless of the status of the Artemis program, meaning any interruptions or changes in future funding wouldn't permanently derail the lander at least, Starship will at least reach earth orbit operations regardless of what does or doesn't happen to Artemis in the interim.

[@nlluke5207]

Wait we went to the moon in 1969, but we can not launch a rocket out of orbit with enough fuel?

[@gregh7457]

@Solman-pr7sk its time to grow up and stop believing hollyweird conspiracy movies about the moon landing

[@Kenny_cuh]

Mf do you know how powerful the Saturn V was and how many stages it needed and the miracles of engineering just get to the moon mf we’re talking getting a rocket that can cary the weight of a semi truck to orbit that was a terrible comparison

[@deertbahg7797]

@@Kenny_cuh go feltch elsewhere N/663R

[@pootyting3311]

@Kenny_cuh Or rephrased in a more civil way... today's missions are proposing more payload and longer mission duration. Hence, more could be accomplished today. I would personally argue shooting for less lofty goals at first and then increasing mission capabilities, but however it works out maybe within the 2020s. ✌️

[@jlolson53]

"Infinite Faith" is necessary to believe Artemis has a Snowball's chance in hell.

[@Magic-mushrooms113]

Or the funding

[@jtbaying2312]

But it is a great way to funnel the money to Black Opps. Like Apollo money Was. Wise up...

[@Vokieeeee]

In their belief , Hell is probably Frozen over so the Snowballs will NOT melt there ,lol !

[@jessicaandtrains7768]

Better chance than Space X with that monstrosity

[@mynameisnotyours]

There’s more expertise in the animation team than the engineering team.

[@RoBear-xo6zw]

There has been orbital refilling on ISS… Also, SpaceX was working on orbital refilling prior to NASA asking for a HLS… Your multitude of statements and assumptions are deliberately misleading

[@kylewollman2239]

It's probably taboo to mention them here but Common Sense Skeptic has a very detailed breakdown of exactly how SpaceX landed the Artemis contract. Spoiler alert: they essentially bribed the interim NASA director with a high paid cushy job if she chose them, which she did and immediately went to work for them.

[@andresperovich9601]

Best and Brightest.

[@JasonBravo-b9k]

No rocket refuling was needed back in 1969 , and it was easy to go to the moon back then, we even brought vehicles there and able to fly out of the moon effortlessly. Why would it be so difficult now with technology that is far more advanced? Unless......🤔

[@Tiriris]

unless the safety measures of today are way higher than back then in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes that leed to deaths?

[@gorataxis4318]

Unless it was faked and filmed in the Arizona desert!!?

[@ncg8259]

There are way too many plants in Sonora. Try Mojave.

[@shaundouglas2057]

Exactly! Now explain that to those that believe the moon landing happened. I swear plain old commonsense and logic gets vented straight out into space when these people's delusions of mankinds grandeur are threatened with the obvious.

[@riseaboveworld350]

Or Hollywood basement

[@PoliticalCineaste]

The relatively puny service module on Orion is going to possibly come back and haunt the Artemis program. I'm more worried about Orion, which doesn't fly frequently, than Starship. The low cadence of both SLS and Orion mean they will forever be experimental machines and not reliable. The Artemis program doesn't need Orion nor SLS. One part of NASA is studying how to use Dragon to take a crew to and back from LEO, and dock with Starship. The HLS, can do everything else. No need for the "Lunar Toll Booth" either, nor the expensive and low-cadence SLS-Orion architecture. Also, by eliminating SLS-Orion - huge, huge cost savings as well. Each SLS launch is $4.2 billion, versus around $120 million for all the flight hardware and launches for Starship, and another $200 million for two Dragon on F9 launches ( less if only one launch is needed, if SpaceX can make Dragon capable of loitering in LEO for a month on its own). More than an order of 10 times savings. Dragon flies three to four times a year now, and is proven. Orion has flown twice in 10 years and has issues. Starship already has flown more times than SLS, and each flight is improving on the previous one. By this time next year, Starship will likely have flown more times than SLS ever will, and do it before its second flight. If Artemis III is a LEO test run, similar to Apollo 9, it'll be the most expensive LEO mission ever performed. I also don't expect the next SLS-Orion launch until at least 2026. A lunar landing is NET 2028, maybe later and closer to the 60th anniversary of Apollo 11 than Apollo 8. At that point, it will be just like the 1960s race to the Moon, with the potential for the Chinese to get there first. I have faith in SpaceX, but using SLS-Orion is the bigger issue, not really mentioned in the video.

[@RobertoMaurizzi]

They also forgot to mention the recent findings about the cracks and flaking in Orion's re-entry shield. They don't know why it happens, so they don't know how to fix it... They'll have to guess and possibly test a reentry. For an Apollo 8 style mission they should really find a way to launch Orion with Vulcan or New Glenn (easier than Falcon Heavy) but it's not going to happen because they WANT to spend the money for a SLS launch. Most of the problems mentioned in this video come down from Congress sabotaging anything that didn't give money to Boeing and Lockeed Martin 😩

[@elessartelcontar9415]

"Puny"? The Orion service module holds 4 astronauts, is 13 feet tall and 13 feet in diameter and weighs 30,000 lbs (about the same as 15 average cars). "Puny"? I think not!

[@cme98]

The Chinese have one very expendable feature Americans can’t use… A billion people. Make no mistake China will use their own people as guinea pigs in order to beat the Americans. Even the Russians were not that barbaric. They simply gave up. But if China knows for a fact they can mine Helium-3 on the moon, the advantages of such a discovery outweigh any risk to human life in getting there especially as far as our own military at that point will take over NASAs mission. That really is what returning to the moon is all about. Helium-3

[@ChrisFord-wh1gl]

Maybe it’s like the military and the main function is to funnel taxes into corporate pockets. Have you seen the new bi metal casings on the new rifle. An ingenious way to increase the price of ammunition 5X. Or building the f22 and then (realizing) that you can’t keep them operating with the current support logistics so just make some more f16’s

[@LordSandwichII]

SLS actually went to the the Moon and came back. All Starship has done so far is explode!

[@RedwoodTheElf]

5:50 There is no "X" in "Asterisk" unless you're talking about a Gaul in a comic book.

[@cbgardenmaryland]

No one is going to the moon anytime soon. Maybe if they ever get a lander in the next 15 to 20 years.

[@zdenekburian1366]

chinese and russian could

[@spartanpatriot3163]

We already have one, it's in the Smithsonian

[@user-ThomReec8587]

Ain't NO WAY 2035 maybe 2040 more likely. Neither Starship nor Artemis will be ready to go to the Moon for at least 7 to 10 years at least

[@RSCB]

maybe 2060 because human future prediction is wack

[@user-ThomReec8587]

@@RSCB 😂😂🤣😂👍

[@shaundouglas2057]

But we did it in the 60's with a craft wrapped in tinfoil and held together with gafftape.

[@dan-bz7dz]

When they announced they'd be using the Starship, I knew they were not going to be anywhere close to their target date.

[@Asterra2]

Artemis III is optimistically slated for late 2026, with the expectation that it will slip to 2027. This is due to issues surrounding the Orion craft. I'm not saying that 2.5 years is necessarily enough time to have the HLS ready to go, but the slippage in date is manifestly NASA's own fault for now.

[@javierderivero9299]

@@Asterra2 The major reason of the slip is Starship lunar lander, it wasn't going to be ready for 2025 (NO WAY!!)...Orion was burnt, not according to expected...but most important NOBODY would have died during the reentry...NASA took more risks during the Apollo program..in 2024 safety is first...Starship Lunar lander has a long way to go, reaching orbit, landing and launching from the moon, safety, etc...Orion is fixable and tested

[@Asterra2]

@@javierderivero9299 I'm just telling you like it is. Literally, late 2026 to 2027 is 100% because of the investigation into Orion. Yes, HLS is also not currently ready, but let's be realistic about this: NASA knew it wouldn't be. The progress SpaceX has already made towards their 100% unprecedented checklist has been achieved at an equally unprecedented speed. Had NASA been hellbent on having a lander ready for 2025, they would have risked one of the other options, even with the pricetag being 2x to 4x higher. If I were to guess, I would say the fact that SpaceX was 100% committed to Starship with or without a HLS contract was a big contributing factor.

[@javierderivero9299]

@@Asterra2 There are some people that not matter what wants SpaceX to win...I rather BO be succesful next year landing on the moon with the BO lunar lander than the Chinese...BE-4 engines have been succesful with ULA, New Glenn is launching in a couple months, and according to Bezos BO lunar lander is landing on the moon (protyype) in 2025...I hope so....USA of America IS NOT!!! I repeat is not Space X...SpaceX is just a succesful company with Dragon and Falcon 9...it has to prove that the Lunar Lander is succesful

[@RobertoMaurizzi]

I knew they'd never been able to do it on time when they didn't start any landing project until 2021 and then only for less than 3 billion USD... But of course what Congress cared about was to bankroll Boeing and LM

[@wjlasloThe2nd]

Just like when they try to reinvent trains, it turns out that whenever these billionaire idiots try something new, they end up taking something somebody did 50 years ago and just making it much more expensive, dangerous, and impractical

[@rbmwiv]

From my experience more complicated equals more problems.

[@pointnemo369]

You hit on many items I have thought about and you made an awesome video about it. Moon not gonna happen, Mars not gonna happen, In it current configuration and projections. Two words... Snake Oil. I enjoy watching the circus. I would like to see them succeed. I have no idea why this channel just now popped up on my feed. I subscribed and rang the bell.

[@hughjardon5869]

NASA: Not A Space Agency

[@00BillyTorontoBill]

NASA : Never A Straight Answer

[@ronjon7942]

“Drawn to the orange color of the SLS.” Pretty funny.

[@NivCalderon]

This is perhaps the best episode you've ever created

[@iplayfhorn]

I think using Starship a a lunar lander is a stupid idea. SpaceX should have developed a Lunar Dragon version rather than this, if they wanted to land on the moon. All it takes is one glitch, and Artemis comes home with half her crew. This has a great chance of being more dangerous than Apollo ever could have been.

[@LordFalconsword]

Stupid idea. Too much waste.

[@ws1-r]

In order for a lunar dragon to work a base station would have to be placed on the moon first.

[@iplayfhorn]

@@LordFalconsword I know, right? A lunar lander version of Dragon docked with the Gateway and used as a ferry would make way more sense.

[@de-bodgery]

Maybe...SpaceX does land Falcon 9 pretty consistently these days! When was the last time there was a mishap during landing? Many Falcon 9 boosters have made 18+ launches and landings now! Admittedly landing on an unprepared surface such as the Moon or Mars will add complications. All the Apollo moon landings were very risky. The same "one glitch" issue was very much applicable to them and yet 1970's tech landed men on the moon several times. I think getting Starship landed successfully will be pretty mundane. Also, Apollo landers had a single rocket to land with and Starship will have 6. This among other things will add levels of redundancy that Apollo never had!

[@iplayfhorn]

@@de-bodgery True, but the Lunar Module was half as tall as Starship, if that, plus it had the option of landing manually. I’m sure they could make it work, but if it tips over, that’s all she wrote. Starship, in my opinion, is just overkill; all that crap for two people. They could modify the Dragon to have a descent engine in the “trunk” along with the same kind of legs the Falcon has, and presto - instant lunar lander. Either that, or go back to the original concept of the Dragon capsule having pop-out legs, and using the Super Draco engines as descent/ascent engines. I’m really surprised nobody ever thought of that.

[@jhill4874]

So Sad. We went to the moon in less than 10 years in the 60s, doing everything from scratch. Now we (a) know we can do it, and (b) know how to do it. But there isn't any real will to do so.

[@Romanera3]

There are many more problems and no one is willing to talk about. We not just want to go to the moon, we want to be on the moon because others are developing technologies without the stress NASA has. Nobody is interested in the way we got to the moon in the 60's. They don't have the 14% of national budget that was designated to moon landing program back there. They have to go from different orbit NHRO. That is very long orbit, not only with a lot of fuel transfer requirement but difficultly to get or even miss exit to moon low orbit because of the very high speed at the approach.

[@JouniKyy-xn4kd]

Who is this we, u mean nazy scientist

[@champspec]

How are you so sure that we went to the moon in the 60’s? The President who questioned its validity was assassinated for a reason. The more time it takes for us to make it to the moon “again” only raises the amount of speculation that already growing larger by the day

[@Sammyli99]

@@Romanera3 HOWEVER, you have now gothow many hours of GLOBAL space travel, and knowledge, and the excuses, are a cover up that they hoped they could keep pushing along while MARS or TITAN consumes everyone...the main problem ain't doing it, its DOING IT and COVERING UP the reality, that's the problem they are trying to solve....too many "eyes" on now.

[@Johnny-rj9on]

No one went to the moon. "We lost the telemetry tapes!" All 70 boxes of them... 🤣🤦‍♂👏

[@alwilson3204]

NASA is seriously lacking in the quality of ingenuity of the 1960's.

[@EnneaIsInterested]

Comparatively, it's actually much easier to use a moon cycler, than to depend on the Lunar Gateway, the Orion Capsule and the Earth Departure Stage. If you've got what's essentially a big space station orbiting between the Earth and Luna, requiring very little fuel to do so, you can maximize attention on getting a functional lunar taxi.

[@crispen-cl8gq]

Topple. Have we seen this happen in recent lunar landings? This all sounds not so good.

[@bugsbunny8691]

WAIT A SECOND.... They didnt need to do this in 1969 during the Apollo Moon Landings! What is going on, I wonder?

[@Amine-gz7gq]

lol 😂

[@gedstrom]

I know this video was about the Moon, but let's talk about Mars! When we first landed on the Moon in 1969, everyone was saying that we would land humans on Mars within the next 10 years, or 1979. I kept telling people that it would not happen during my lifetime. They said I was crazy, and I still say the same thing today some 55 years later! People have little idea of the kinds of problems that remain to be solved before such a trip could be made. Some of the problems might be solvable. But the BIGGEST problem is one that CAN NOT be solved: The speed of light! Under the best of conditions, the round-trip communications delay to Mars is on the order of 20 minutes. When we landed on the moon, the delay was only about 3 seconds. We had hundreds of people here on Earth monitoring everything about the spacecraft and could give the astronauts advice about any problems within 3 seconds. Landing on Mars, the astronauts would be COMPLETELY on their own without any help from Earth. Do we REALLY want to do that?

[@pootyting3311]

"Do we REALLY want to do that?" Yes, though for me personally only after we on Earth have solved some more pressing problems.

[@rodrigooliveiraborges4269]

First video on the channel that makes sense and thank you for your sobriety in talking about the topic, as most people think the landing on the moon is like playing video games.

[@johnmurphy9636]

Totally right Rodrigo. I lived through all the Apollo stuff and have read and viewed voraciously since. There's so much more to what happened in the 1960s and 70s. Read history beyond this and other channels. There's so much there. Most of the astronauts and flight controllers are gone now but many left memoirs. They were all, in my humble opinion, legends and heroes. Whether there are still people like that out there?? Well we'll see.

[@Criticalthinker0515]

​@@johnmurphy9636actors are everywhere its fake

[@stab74]

Out of ALL his vidoes, and there are tons, THIS is the first to make sense? Huh?

[@rodrigooliveiraborges4269]

@@stab74 The channel is Elon Musk fanboys and they end up jumping on board with his fallacies and often forget to mention other special projects as important as NASA's.

[@AndreAngelantoni]

A series of technological miracles are needed for this complex mission to work-which won’t happen. It will be canceled before the end of the decade.

[@johnmurphy9636]

A lot of the "miracles" happened in the 60's Andre. We are re-inventing the wheel a bit. I don't disagree though. National and corporate priorities change.

[@dinkokolic4386]

If you believe in miracles, then you also believe that people were on the moon in 1969

[@Fridaey13txhOktober]

@@johnmurphy9636 "We are re-inventing the wheel a bit." 52 years in December. Nuff said.

[@wouldntyouliketoknow9891]

@@johnmurphy9636 The miracles happened in the 60's due to the full force of unlimited budget, the pride of the nation and real risk of falling behind the soviets in space race. Today we have a budget starved agency supervising a political circus and the worlds biggest psychopath at the helm of a private company that is supposed to supply key pieces of the plan.

[@stab74]

@@dinkokolic4386 Shouldn't you be hiding from chemtrails?

[@rossanderson5815]

Ignoring the timeline and budget. Neither are doable (until they prove me wrong). I love how you explained how they are going to do this. They're problem solvers (and if apollo 13 taught us anything, good ones). Don't start working on the landing legs problem until you've sorted the travel problem, don't start the travel problem until you've sorted the fuel transfer problem (allegedly they have). Just keep working down the pipeline.

[@TheGreatAmphibian]

This is, of course, the attitude that lead to the Shuttle..

[@MollyGermek]

When they said all components must be designed to withstand a vacuum they didn't mean they should designed _in_ one. If you're correct and they only design for problems as they arise then there is going to be a lot of redesigning.

[@rossanderson5815]

@MollyGermek not what I meant, what I meant was that you don't start your planning about problem x (let's say landing) until you've solved problem y (taking off). You can have concepts, but you tackle one problem at a time.

[@TheGreatAmphibian]

@@rossanderson5815 Yes, everyone knows you meant that. And everyone who knows anything about engineering or project management knows that this is ridiculous for the reasons we have already explained.

[@poetryflynn3712]

@@TheGreatAmphibian The reality with project management is that project managers usually end up being the mouthpiece for the investors to boss around the engineers more than the mediator that tells an investor what is or isn't possible.

[@Miner-dyne]

The level of snark and negativity in the comments explains much of why we are still a one planet species. Maybe the universe is better if we just keep it that way.

[@barryshimmon1129]

Those guys at NASA and SpaceX are very smart at keeping themselves in well paid jobs, all they have to do is keep kicking the can down the road with regard to timelines of humans going to the Moon.

[@jstates1]

"You can tell it's real because it looks so fake... honestly." -Elon Musk

[@shermanjohnson2015]

This is the realist article you have done on this channel. You cannot land a Starship on the moon without a landing pad. What do you do with the first test Starship you land on the moon? What do you do with any of the starships you land on the moon after you use them and return back to orbit?

[@korana6308]

Good point however you are thinking too far into the mission. The main question arises much earlier... First they need a reliable Starship rocket, which they don't have at the moment (and it's not even designed for the Moon yet)... but more importantly, we need a proof of the concept that you can refill a rocket reliably 20 times in the orbit... That question arises way earlier before any of the Moon landing can even commence. Can they overcome this hurdle?

[@shermanjohnson2015]

@@korana6308 You are correct I am thinking ahead, but this is supposed to happen in just 2 years. I think the Starship is a great concept for low earth orbit, but from there other space tugs should deliver cargo to the moon. It is the wrong choice for the first moon landing.

[@vidyaishaya4839]

​@shermanjohnson2015 two years is not going to happen. 2030 is a more realistic target date. That's also the target date for China to get there. It's a coin flip who gets there first.

[@shermanjohnson2015]

@@vidyaishaya4839 I do not think we can wait until 2030 to land on the moon. China is planning to land in the same area NASA designated for it's moon base. It is time to admit that Blue Origin's team has a better chance of creating a lander for the moon in less than 6 years.

[@thorin1045]

@@shermanjohnson2015 nope, they already pushing it back, nasa do not consider anything before late 2026, spacex floats the test landing around that time, maybe. and aims for the human one maybe in 2028. so if we lucky the usa may land in this decade, if we somewhat less lucky, the usa will land in the next decade, if we unlucky at any point, the usa will not land (with humans) for several decades.

[@Good_Minso]

I am a little confused, why does NASA need the SLS when they have space X building the starship or the other way around?

[@spanke2999]

because SLS is a Senate baby and creates kind of jobs. if it would be an economical idea, nobody would land on the Moon or Mars in the first place. Escaping a gravity well to jump down another one... why on Earth...

[@javierderivero9299]

Hello!!!...starship is not ready or tested...you are sending humans lives....SLS was tested 2 years ago, and succesfully...you have to test first the rocket...and obviously testing Starship takes time, not succesful test yet!!!...they won't be ready for Artemis II in 2025 ...not even for Artemis III in 2026...maybe in 2028...the Chinese will get there first

[@davidnwaokolo1905]

​@@javierderivero9299So the biggest problem here is starship and not SLS?

[@javierderivero9299]

​@@davidnwaokolo1905 Of course, SLS is and has been ready since 2021. Starship has been even tested, not for launch, not for landing on the moon ZERO!!!....NADA!!!. And the test needs to be succesful. There are humans inside. Yes, there is a small problem with Orion, (not SLS), the surface burnt uneven during the reentry of Artemis I, during the unmanned flight, nobody was going to die if they would have people inside Orion. But you know we are in 2024, safety is first, not like the Apollo days when NASA took a lot of risks. Artemis II will be ready in 2025, they delayed from 2024, at least in my opinion, because definitely Artemis III, ..and I mean startship wasn't going to be ready for 2026....and maybe not in 2027...or 2028, is a complicated spacecraft as the video metion...even when people doesn't like Blue Origin, the later design is more suitable for the first landings on the moon, and according to Bezos???, Blue Origin moon lander prototype will be landing on the moon next year

[@flink1231]

If starship works you could fly humans to low earth orbit on dragon, dock and transfer to starship, go to the moon, come backs, jump back into dragon and come down to earth.

[@danielbrowniel]

The things you said Space x wont tell us.. yes they did. This isn't like the Apollo missions where they are building 2 or 3 ships a year. Space X is still making prototypes and they are making them significantly faster and cheaper than the Apollo rockets which weren't reusable at all. I'm sorry, I don't think "don't accomplish things no one has accomplished before because idk? that's somehow offensive to the people you worship?" Is that heretical?

[@theroguewoodwalker4956]

It’s very hard to tell what is marketing and what is actually true. Like Artemis 3, NASA has changed the mission profile so many times who knows what is next we might not have the next moon landing till 2030. I don’t want to say NASA is in the wrong, space flight is extremely hard but in the end it is taxpayer dollars being spent and the people want results. Apollo was a great mission that helped the general public understand how great space flight is, but NASA made the wrong call. As you said in one of your latest video’s it is interesting to think about if NASA kept going to the moon maybe we would be at mars right now and who knows maybe on Titan.

[@korana6308]

They didn't restructure the core part of the program, they've pretty much just delayed it. For it to work, they would actually have to restructure it.

[@theroguewoodwalker4956]

@@korana6308 let me Rephrase we do not know if Artemis 3 will be the next moon landing, NASA in the last couple years has promised things that might not happen like the first Mars mission to return the first sample from Mars. I am worried about the mission not doing everything NASA said it was going to do. Thank you for correcting me though my intention was not to say that the core part of the mission was restructured. My main intent is to say that China has a high likelihood of beating the US to the moon.

[@johnmurphy9636]

Hate to say this but I think Artemis 2 will be a shadow rerun of Apollo8 in 1968. Except no reading of Genesis, no Earthrise image no first people to orbit.

[@ws1-r]

The Artemis moon plan moves all the orbital energy problems from the capsule to the lander. A better approach would be to have a better Mrion service module like the Apollo service module. This would make a safer circular low orbit possible. The lower orbit would let the lander need less power.

[@pong9000]

Some countries are planning a permanently crewed station in _lunar_ orbit. Landings will be much easier from that platform.

[@ohedd]

The upshot, however, is that once that Starship lands, they have literally 100 tons of usable payload on the surface. Contrast that to Apollo 11 thru 17, where they only brought 100-250 kg of usable equipment to the lunar surface. This will be a seismic shift in what we can do in space.

[@ezwansafri8006]

The parameters were purposely made difficult so that they can call it off later. It is all just propaganda.

[@jtbaying2312]

Ever find that pot of Gold at the End of the Rainbow? Cause you definitely believe its there.

[@DrHotelMario]

Starship ain't landing on the moon m8

[@5893MrWilson]

​@@jtbaying2312spaceX moves 90% of all cargo tonnage to space and owns 2/3 of all active satellites. I got a feeling your comment won't age well.

[@5893MrWilson]

@smeeself yeah for a moon landing you need a life support capsule, space suits, and the ability to land a rocket. Too bad SpaceX hasn't done any of these things.. oh wait

[@aluisious]

I don't have infinite faith in their ability. I have faith in the ability of an arrogant bully to cause a disaster. That happens all the time.

[@thomasmount7388]

When I play Kerbal Space Program 1, that polar highly elliptical orbit is the easiest for ONE thing - having a launch time that does not exactly coincide with an intercept (because the Orion will be almost stationary at its apogee, widening the potential intercept window by HOURS.) I cannot think of a single reason why NASA might wish to depart the moon abruptly but that functionality of the mission seems to be the only upside of the NRHO.

[@TheGreatAmphibian]

Actuality, there is an excellent reason why nasa might want to get astronauts off the moon fast: solar storms. At least if they can predict them with enough lead time.

[@lorendavidsonmusic]

One reason would be certain types of medical emergency, where an astronaut needs better healthcare than they can get in a floating tin can 238K miles from home. (Not making the obvious jokes about US healthcare. :) )

[@johnmurphy9636]

Sorry Thomas but playing computer simulations don't make you an expert on trajectories etc. The Flight Surgeon on Apollo 15 saw Jim Irwin having heart palpitations on the moon. Nuthin they could do. Jim died early from a heart attack.

[@thomasmount7388]

Two replies, and two good reasons given. Real scientists don't troll see? Thanks guys. Both suggestions seem to health and safety related. I long wondered if we didn't go back to the moon because it was too dangerous. Like when you're rock climbing and you find a 100 year old piece of equipment with a snapped hemp rope hanging off it, and you think, that would never be allowed these days.

[@TheGreatAmphibian]

@@thomasmount7388 I think the fact that lunar missions were pointless and expensive should also be considered. And the Shuttle caused an immense jam: it absorbed the manned space flight budget, showed that nasa was incompetent, and didn’t do a fraction of what it was supposed to have done. If it had made 50 flights a year and cut the cost of reaching orbit dramatically, then a lunar program using a transfer vehicle launched and fuelled by the Shuttle might have followed.

[@JPV246]

So basically we never went to the Moon!

[@shaundouglas2057]

Yep it certainly seems that away...yet again.

[@JPV246]

@smeeself how much is the monthly fee to be a NASA cult member?

[@deertbahg7797]

@smeeself so you're a feltcher eh?

[@healingwithmarcus6585]

This is quite crazy to watch. All the problems that supposedly were solved in 1960's and we still can't figure it out? We, who are so intelligent, so smart with AI and all the other bells and whistles... It sure makes me doubt the validity of the original moon adventures.

[@Rob-gj4hz]

You have it backwards. You should question how " so intelligent and so smart" we are now. And AI does nothing for making spaceships. We were smarter back then.

[@nylonstringninja]

It took them 260 billion dollars to "figure it out". If we threw the kind of money and resources and priority at this as they did in the 60s there is no telling what we would be accomplishing combined with all our technological advancement. I don't know why people doubt their success getting to the moon. They worked a plan step by step all the way there. Landing on the moon isn't as much a technology problem as it is a physics problem and we're trying different approaches than in earlier eras. Moving mass through space takes a lot of power and a lot of fuel ($$$) it was hard then, it's hard now, and it always will be hard. Look at jet airplanes from the 1960s and today. Not much fundamental difference. The SR-71 was built in the same period. Look at the Voyagers and Vikings. They were brilliant people using all the funding and technology available to solve really hard problems that we are still solving using new ideas. Don't confuse being able to successfully replicate something with it being easy to do.

[@MrBob1984]

At this rate we have a better chance of inventing a time machine and going back to the 60s and begging for the technology to land on the moon. Makes you wonder especially when there is lots of pictures with shadows going different directions. If you have a ruler you can trace those shadows back to a light source about a 100 feet in the air.

[@Ozie1981]

I think a lot of the space industry is at this point just holding their breath for starship. They’re trying not to and they’re trying even harder not to look like they are, but if starship comes online with even half the functionality they promise, it makes almost everything else obsolete and a waste of resources. An ironically similar comparison to this is the lack of effort we’ve put into interstellar probes; We don’t send probes to other stars for some future generation to benefit from because technology keeps advancing so quickly that any probe we launch today towards Alpha Centauri would be overtaken long before it gets there by a probe we launch tomorrow. And the reason why every one (especially NASA) is getting more and more comfortable holding their breath on this is the remarkable progress that SpaceX has made on the starship program. I know it’s a gamble to just trust them when they say that they’ll “figure out” orbital refueling, but to be fair; they’ve done a pretty impressive job of “figuring it out” so far…

[@kennyfordham6208]

If you won't come out and say it, I will. (clears throat) Ahem....the Artemus Mission is a STUPID idea. 🤨

[@ricpla6930]

Really awkward trying to explain how they supposedly did this in the 60’s but now can’t figure it out 50 years later, gimme a break. They never went to begin with

[@dextermorgan1]

There are mirrors on the moon. I know that for a fact because I've been at the Planetarium when they used a laser to measure the distance from the Earth to the moon. How did those mirrors get there? I'll tell you. Apollo 14. Also, contrary to popular belief, they DID Turn Hubble towards the moon and take pictures. You can literally see the tracks from some of the Apollo missions, and the lunar rover tracks. There are a ton of other reasons you don't know what you're talking about, too but I'm tired of typing.

[@BahaaFahmy-ch2lg]

They lost the technology and the film of man's greatest accomplishment, that was lost too.

[@shaundouglas2057]

I 100% agree with you, as time goes by the supposed moon landing seems like one massive lie.

[@dextermorgan1]

@smeeself Don't bother. These people are brainwashed and clueless. They won't ever see the truth.

[@deertbahg7797]

@smeeself Too lone didnt read you're a retard

[@PAN77769]

The Archvillain screaming at the top of his lungs: "You fools! You killed Kubrick too soon!"

[@SunsetCove-dn7mw]

This video really makes me give a little more credence to that theory...

[@tedzehnder961]

The biggest trends that NASA has done since the 1980`s is delays and cost over runs.The next trend is no one is ever fired from NASA over these other two trends.They are a great foundation for pure science but they don`t have a grasp on doing business and identifying problems early because politics is inherent in the decision process.They also don`t look for the cheapest ways to solve problems but prefer the "Mercedes" approach to a "Chevy" solution.

[@ninehundreddollarluxuryyac5958]

You're right. There is a lot left to figure out, and a lot that has never been done before. I wasn't aware that the landing crew wouldn't be able to return to the lunar station except once a week. The old Apollo low lunar orbit allowed aborts at almost any time. That sounds a lot safer.

[@aggonzalezdc]

Near rectilinear halo orbit. It's practically become a curse word in some circles. It solves some problems, like keeping in constant contact without needing a set of lunar relay satellites, and allowing access to the poles, but it creates other problems.

[@pootyting3311]

Also, for the lucky astronaut(s) that stay orbiting the moon along the low lunar ecliptic path, they get some true alone time. They go to the far side of the moon, no radio contact possible with anybody, and farthest away from another human being possible. I suppose not everyone would like to follow in Michael Collins' path to be the loneliest human for a little while, but I find that orbit to be philosophically satisfying, a time for reflection. 😁 That being said, whatever orbit works best for these missions. They may be able to address the increased risk by mitigating risk elsewhere. ✌️

[@THEScottCampbell]

"NEAR-RECTAL LINEAR ORBIT???" OUCH! SOUNDS RISKY AND PAINFUL!

Hopefully the Chinese will allow them to land.

[@korana6308]

Something tells me that the Chinese will land first...

[@travishylton6976]

lol

[@blakenaftel3637]

@@korana6308 Well, I mean... first, give or take 60 years.

[@tbarrelier]

@@korana6308 I agree.

[@MrNeonz-fk2ky]

@@korana6308 If they are the first to land it'll be with limited & less capable technology; we're going back to establish a lunar base/colony, not just land. That's another reason why SpaceX Starship was chosen as the main lander because it's capable of transporting a lot more than it's other competitors. Russia & China have made plans for a joint lunar colony of their own, but they're still behind in development, even so, they've actually begun copying SpaceX's design.

[@slyktech1860]

The more I see the Starship develop, the more confident I am in knowing of the "How" we will colonize Mars.

[@Colombiaguapo]

The contract should have been given to blue origin. The had the best proposal, the best management, and most importantly, a CEO that is all in on the mission. We will never go to the moon using starship. They spent 3 out of $5 billion and they’re still in the design phase of starship.

[@gregh7457]

is the moon considered a distraction to elon?

[@dorrianstone7264]

which may be exactly why they didnt chose it. looks to me like they WANT delays. theyve been saying we are going back to the moon "in about 10 years" for decades now. really gotta wonder how we managed to do something 55 years ago (it only took 10-15 years to develop all the tech) then completely abadonded it (including "losing" ALL the original data, film and equipment) and cant seem to make it today. If Ford was asked to recreate a 69 Mustang, think theyd be able to do it? No other country has ever sent humans to the moon in all that time either. Really makes you wonder why we havent gone back.

[@5893MrWilson]

Blue origin might have had the best render but spaceX is actually launching rockets

[@Colombiaguapo]

@@5893MrWilson Spacex launching falcon 9 rockets has nothing to do with the Artemis program, it’s entirely different as we can see with the success of the falcon 9 rockets compared to the failure of every starship launch thus far. Blue origin didn’t have render they had an actual lander which is what NASA asked for

[@5893MrWilson]

@@Colombiaguapo blue origins has never put a life support system in to orbit. SpaceX does it routinely. Blue origins is a side hobby for bezos at best that scoops up the engineers that aren't good enough to work at spaceX. Trusting blue origins to do anything better than spaceX is laughable

[@mathewomolo]

I like how everyone is reacting to the insane refueling problem.

[@Asterra2]

It's funny because the video itself points out that there's already a 200 ton payload variant of Starship in the cards, yet it ignores what that means for the number of refueling trips that will be needed.

[@RobertoMaurizzi]

It also forgets to mention that you don't need 100 tons of payload to the moon on that first mission, so it's unlikely you need full tanks (or that the tanks will be completely empty when reaching orbit: we know that for the second test flight they dumped fuel to reach the expected mass at orbit insertion)

[@Asterra2]

@@RobertoMaurizzi While it's true you don't need a huge payload for the first mission, I still feel it would make the mission a lot more exciting. And people will be pretty much expecting NASA to take advantage of all that space for something meaningful. It's not as though there would be a huge difference between a Starship with and a Starship without a full payload, mass wise.

[@RobertoMaurizzi]

@@Asterra2 well, current estimates for it's dry mass are in the 160-200 t range, so an extra 100 tons of cargo mass would have a sizeable impact on the fuel required to accelerate it to the moon. I agree that without taking advantage of that mass delivery capability developing a moon base would be MUCH more difficult, so it's going to be used after the first flights... and likely after an orbiting fuel depot with active cryogenic cooling capabilities is developed.

[@Asterra2]

@@RobertoMaurizzi Exactly, yeah. Conspicuously, NASA are not currently seeking partners to help with the gargantuan mass transport that will be needed after the boots and flags of Artemis III / IV are completed. I mean, let's start with JAXA's contribution, the giant Toyota vehicle. Good luck getting that to the moon with a pod from National Team. No, NASA isn't looking for mass transport because the unspoken understanding is that they already have it, thank goodness. Imagine the scenario where National Team's suing of NASA flipped the decision. Starship HLS would be off the table, and then what? There'd be a scramble, and Artemis would probably die after IV.

[@maddmarkk1]

That sounded like heavy sarcasm at the end I’m not gonna lie and I’m kind of agreeing with it

[@NitaWasson-r5z]

Drawn to the orange rocket!LOL😅😅😅That was moment I knew I was subscribing. Thank you!!

[@ooo-vc4xl]

The other issue is the heat shield. Starship is not going to be reusable without a complete check and fix of the heat shield each time. This means that there will need to be 10 to 15 starships built to do the refuelling within a short period.

[@Asterra2]

In the very short term, they totally have the option of building cheap, tile-less Starships at ~25-30 million a pop and expending them. By the time they need to do this, Block 3 will be a thing, they'll be sending up 200 tons at a time, and that will require maybe only 7 launches total. Pretty cheap. If the tile problem really does extend for that long, there's your answer.

[@sneakersda2199]

It’s hilarious that there are not alarms and red flags going off in everyones heads about having ever been to the moon. All these NASA experts and billion dollar companies saying they don’t know how to do it, it needs all this new stuff that doesn’t exist, yet we are supposed to believe that it was done in the early 60’s. 🤣 Watch this video again and ask yourself if you really think we did all this with the primitive technology of the early 1960’s. It’s insane that people think we have ever put a human on the moon.

[@DCresident123]

So much of the tech supposedly used for the Apollo missions is still classified or not explained and the tech never seen again...

[@crispen-cl8gq]

The moon plan is all over the place. Oh, woe. It seems there is no hope to pull it all together.

[@mtgAzim]

So why do that have to do all this extra stuff just to get to the moon? Couldn't they just plan something a little closer to what worked multiple times sixty years ago? You'd think that six decades of technological advancement would've made this process easier.

[@Hobbes746]

Sure, they could plan a repeat of Apollo. But the goal of Artemis is not just to go to the moon: it’s to prepare for missions to Mars. To test the technology we need for those missions. On-orbit refueling is part of that.

[@cappadocius9379]

Building a refuel station makes a lot of sense. Not just for the moon mission but future space travels. It wouldn't surprise me if SpaceX wants to use this method for Mars.

[@terencespross]

Still a donting idea the a lot of engineering problems to face

[@JohnsonCook-t1q]

What's the quick way to the moon.? Pull down your pants and ask big bird! Answer around the back!

[@jaymac7203]

"We'll promise you whatever you want just GIVE US MONEY" 😭😭😭😭😭 lol - NASA probably.

[@terminusest5902]

Spacex is still doing amazing work. Starships 5 launch test is ready and amazing new engines are being tested. Test launch 5 will be Amazing even if it fails. That is how Spacex develops technology so fast. Failures in testing is expected. A probe is needed to explore a suitable moon landing spot. Level and very solid ground. Future operations with likely require a prepared landing spot. Clear of dust. For a base station . With remote machinery. Like a bobcat. Likely with some autonomy. And modular systems for easy repair. Tunnel digging equipment would also be great to build a base. Regolith dirt can be used to make bricks for construction. 3D printing is an option using solar power. Or rammed bricks. Tunnels just need a paint on sealant. Inflatable buildings are another option.

[@spaceteapot]

mark my words, blue origin will have a better and more reliable rocket in new Glenn before Musk's tin can takes off the ground properly

[@MikeBaxterABC]

12:33 OMG GREAT FILM OF the practise lander!!! .. I'm Not a diehard fan like many my age ( watched the last moon landing on live TV) .... BUT I am fairly certain I have never seen this practice lander film before!! thank you for including it!!! :)

[@deertbahg7797]

retard

[@MukiBlalock]

Yeah so it doesn't look like we're going back to the moon or especially Mars anytime soon!😢

[@dmitrij1579]

Там никого небыло, не переживай

[@Larrycarr63]

Maybe you should keep your liberal political views to yourself,, instead of incorporating them into what looks like a great story.. Thanks for ruining your platform.. I don’t know if orange is his favorite color or not, but it probably has more brains in the pinky and you do your whole body just to express the point.. for the record that voted for Ted Cruz in primary..

[@spuriouseffect]

I used to make fun of people who said the moon landings were fake. I'm not so sure now. Any person with a 50 I.Q. knows that a tall skinny lander is a bad idea.

[@mariano7699]

7:25 Bring up a thermal shield 🛡 A "left side" of the buster. Only for creating shadow. Or, keep the "orbital ⛽️gas station" on Earth's shadow.

[@soothsayer2406]

Sounds like the Dallas/California high speed rail project ...its alway delayed for the next 5 years and 10 billion more is needed in additional funding this year to continue.

[@ObscureNemesis]

And then comes Musk, promises to magic the whole thing for 10th of the price cough*hyperloop*cough and doesn't deliver.

[@eichelbergergary]

does the new design Blue Origin lander that was awarded a backup contract solve any of these issues potentially?

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

It's definitely a huge improvement on their first attempt. Depends on how successful New Glenn turns out to be, they need that rocket to make the whole thing possible

[@billthecat7536]

@@TheSpaceRaceYT I have little faith in BO. They have yet to launch an orbital vehicle to space despite being established before SpaceX. Re-iteration is the SpaceX way and right now they are hardware rich. These things will be solved SpaceX far sooner the NASA or any other private company could even dream about.

[@javierderivero9299]

@@TheSpaceRaceYT Well... New Glenn is launching in a couple months ..maybe even before the final version of Starship. Bezos has said that they are going to have a prototype landing on the moon in 2025...well knowing BO maybe is too optimistic, but New Glenn is definitely launching

[@yogurtstains]

Blue Origin😂😂😂 nuff said. B.O. and all other space exploration companies combined are years behind Space X. It's not even close.

[@javierderivero9299]

@@yogurtstains I'm not talking about SpaceX...be specific ..I'm talking about StashipLunar lander...is not working...if not LOOK THE VIDEO!!!...nobody can deny Dragon has been a total success...but not because one company has a succes with the Mustang and not with the Pinto (Ford) that doesn't mean everytrhing is perfect...you don't have to love, a company,like a religion, with NO criticism...as I repeat ..starship lunar lander is not working (SLS is working), the other day even the raptors engines have exploded

[@randomstuffwithnofluff7472]

When you said "Fantastic Goal", all I envision is Musk selling snake oil outside of a covered wagon.

[@deertbahg7797]

LoL "Ill buy you a horse"

[@project.jericho]

We've never been and getting there for real is harder than we're willing to admit.

[@cbgardenmaryland]

Starship will never successfully land on the moon

[@rossanderson5815]

Unfortunately people also said you'd never be able to land and reuse a rocket.

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

Personally, I think they can definitely figure it out eventually - with Falcon 9 and the current Starship program, SpaceX can afford to keep screwing up until they get it right. But with the complexity of this Lunar operation, they need to execute flawlessly on the first go - which is objectively not a strongpoint for SpaceX...

[@JZsBFF]

@@rossanderson5815Let's Hyperloop on this one!

[@cbgardenmaryland]

@@rossanderson5815 ne wr heard anyone say that, no moon landing this decade, maybe China but certainly not the US

[@korana6308]

@@TheSpaceRaceYT The problem is multiplex though. They can definitely make a large rocket with infinite money being thrown into it. Eventually they will figure it out. But the question is the overall design for the Moon mission, which doesn't have high hopes... What is not being talked about in the press, is that Elon is trying to make a Swiss knife sort of a rocket. Which would be capable of 1) carrying cargos from one point of the planet to the other. 2) a rocket that can get into the orbit, 3) a rocket that can stay in the orbit and refill itself reliably, 4) a rocket capable of interstellar missions, 5) a rocket that can get on the moons surface, and get back. That's a whole slew of things which with each iterations requires a different rocket design. And on top of this, they have a complicated problem with the supposed 20 refuellnigs in LEOt, and if anything goes awry they would have to launch 20 more rockets... I believe they can build a large - heavy lift rocket, that can get you reliably into space (perhaps even reusable). I question the mission and it's goals in everything else, besides building that heavy lift rocket.

[@vinnylamoureux1187]

Well now, Sonny, we landed on the Moon before. The Moon hasn't changed all that much. We did it with slide rules back then. I still have mine, so if this computer stuff is too complicated, just calĺ me and..."We will get it figured out"