I was onboard USS ANCHORAGE for the Orion exploratory Flight 1 recovery. I watched Orion splashdown and we pulled her into our well deck. I was part of the team trained to ensure the capsule did not sustain damage from fire or regular ship board movements
@@cursedcliff7562 read the previous comments. dragon contains hypergolic fuels in landing phase - apollo and orion ditch all "escape hardware during the ascent". ok?
Know that when you said roomy capsule, you are basing it on "cubic" feet...meaning measuring upwards as well, "not" just side to side space as in "square" feet. Orion capsule is just slightly wider in diameter then Apollo capsule...the extra room comes in leaving out the 1960's computer's and switches of the Apollo capsule. The reason for NASA going back to Apollo shape/design is because so they can use the emergency abort system of Apollo....that of which the crew didn't have designed into the Space Shuttle fleet, resulted into the fatal Challenger crew of seven(7) to needlessly all loose their life on takes-off in 1996.
50+ years later and we still don't have a moonbase like in Space: 1999. What a disappointment that we haven't effectively built on the foundation that was laid in the 1960s.
@J Calhoun I lived through those times too and you have no idea what my politics are or if I have any. Having said that, why don't you be my teacher? Please tell me what exactly it was that Carter did that is "the root cause of most of our current middle east problems". Also, please define "our" in this context.
I have to blame scientists ...they haven't been able during the last 60 years to figure out how to escape gravity at reasonable prices....just now, during the last 10 years) the mix of new technology ( computers, new material,etc), entrepreneurs (Bezos, Musk, Branson, etc) and NASA new policy have reverse the previous trend ...others countries like China, Europe India etc have profited of new advances...but we had to wait more than 50 years
a couple of errors in the video: number 1: nasa was directed to go to the moon in 2017 not 2019, 2019 was when they accelerated those goals number 2: EFT-1 was in 2014 not 2012
thank you for spotting this. I covered a lot of ground and sometimes things slip through the cracks. I need to find some reliable fact-checkers to work with.
NASA was directed to go to the moon in 2004. SLS/Artemis is pretty much just a reboot of Ares. Even in 2004, the plan was to not actually do anything until 2020.
Eli Harman not really, that plan was to go the ISS by 2015 and then when the Ares V entered operation , launch the Orion 13 mission and Ares V rocket with Altair and dock in orbit and then use the EDS to go to TLI and then land. Ares V was barely funded and Altair was never funded, the only thing that really got funding is the ISS part since that was nearer in the future. When constellation was announced, the moon return was 16 years in the future. Now when Artemis was announced, the moon return was 5 years in the future and now we got a fully functional moon rocket, moon capsule and 600 million dollars of funding for the lunar lander. The approach is different as well. Constellation had ISS involved and 2 rockets. Artemis does not use ISS and uses 1 rocket. Artemis builds a lunar space station around the moon while constellation was similar to Apollo
During the explanation of the Apollo spacecraft heat shield, the video showed the Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System Ceramic Tile coming out of a high temperature furnace. The Apollo Heat Shield was hand made from a honeycomb assembly with a heat ablative material injected into each honeycomb tube by workers. It was designed to burn away taking the heat along with it.
@@cin806 you are talking only about phase 1. 2020-2024. Meanwhile there is also much more interesting phase 2, including plasma powered DSS. Lets be honest, if SpaceX will not adapt, plasma propulsion will throw starship off the market
I just found this channel. I really enjoyed the comparison between the two capsules. A small thing I noticed was at 12:41 when talking about the ablative heat shields made for the capsules from the 60's you showed the silicon based cube tiles opposed to the pain-in-the-ass resin based heat shields that were actually used. Great job on the video.
It's a skills program.. You are training people with high end skills. That takes years to produce..Why Rome fell.. It lost all the people that had the skills. To rebuild it. Once you lose them. You are stagnant and decay...Just how nature works. It weeds out the unproductive...
Quick thing. You were showing space shuttle heat tiles while talking about ablative heat shields. The space shuttle's heat shields were non-ablative. They just absorbed, transferred, and radiated the heat, they didn't burn away.
Ares I was not cancelled because it was overtime and budget... It was cancelled, because like the shuttle, it was dangerous, and had an extremely limited abort window. SLS is a giant make -work and pork barrel project for the Alabama Aerospace mafia. Orion would have made an excellent successor to the Apollo capsules, but is quite a few years late.
Great video, however, one correction. Max temps that the ablative heat shield on Apollo CMs had to contend with were around 5000 degrees F., not 25000 degrees.
WAIT you left out the other apollos. (Sorry, I lived through these.). This shows how they gradually tested out capabilities one by one without taking any big steps that could have failed miserably. Apollo 1: speaking of failing miserably, the first astronauts in the US space program to die, died on the launchpad when the interior of Apollo 1 caught fire. The standard atmosphere in US spacecraft was 5psi at 100% oxygen, thinking that a lower pressure would be safer in outer space. Well, the 100% oxygen wasn't. Fire swept through quickly. Gus Grissom (second mercury) died with the other two. The sealed capsule got like red hot on the outside. Big investigation, big overhaul, no more 100% oxygen, no flammable materials inside. Doors that open outward instead of inward. Etc. Apollo 2-6: unmanned tests. don't mess this up again guys. Apollo 7: JUST the command and svs modules, in earth orbit. Make sure the basics work. yawn. Apollo 8: Same, but orbit around the Moon! This was the christmas thing where Frank Borman read out of Genesis, and took photos of the earth rising up from the surface of the moon, and everybody got emotional about how we were just a little blue planet in big space. Everybody remembers this one. Apollo 9: They finally got the Lunar Module (lander) working, but Only in Earth orbit. Rusty Schweikert climbed out and they had special foot inserts in the front porch to keep hm from drifting away. Everybody ignored this one too. Apollo 10: All together now, orbit Moon AND the Lunar Module! But, just to test out both at once, no landing. And, a good thing they did. Turns out, the moon has funny gravitational stuff going on. The lunar module separated, they descended partway down, fired up the upper stage and tried to rendezvous and it didn't go well. I remember hearing these astronauts swearing on national television trying to find each other. Another learning curve for NASA. Apollo 11: Dad let me stay up all night for this one. Kikkin up some dust. That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. He did say 'for man' not 'for a man' even though that was what he intended to say.
Dude, I'm the son of one of the guys who built the F-1 engines. I have touched one, when I was 10. My dad was some sort of big wig in the factory. He never called himself anything but a Lead Man, but he had a design change suggestion that was used and he met Werner Von Braun. He worked at the Canoga Park Rocketdyne complex. The Apollo program financed my childhood.
You omitted talking about getting astronauts safely thru the Van Allen belts. This has been a primary concern of NASA's dating back to the Gemini missions.
Retiring the space shuttle was a disaster. We had the most flexible and sophisticated spacecraft ever conceived, and we threw it away. With commercial options like SpaceX and Starliner becoming available, the shuttle could have gotten out of the space taxi business (which it was overkill for anyway) and focused on a new set of specialized missions that took advantage of it's unique capabilities. Fewer missions per year would mean less pressure on the program, greater safety margins, and lower costs. And it could be used as a construction and launching platform for deep-space missions. We could use it to transport components for moon and mars missions and assemble them in space, without having to rely on tiny capsules and design entirely new heavy launch vehicles to get them off the planet. The money they're wasting on all these new systems (that are actually a huge step backward in capability) should have been spent on a deep refit and upgrade of the shuttle system, along with a new mission set. We could have done anything with the shuttle. Instead we lacked the imagination and foresight to think outside the box.
US got to the Moon in only 9 years, from a start of NO maned spaceflights at all, in an era of slide rules, mechanical calculators, computers that took up entire floors of a building, and hundreds of manual draftsmen. Today it is almost 10 years since ending a maned spaceflight system, and STILL no new flights have happened yet, in an era of super computers, CAD design, worldwide communications, etc, despite having DECADES of experience. Meanwhile, Russia has plodded along with essentially the same hardware for 20 years, and only pauses of a MONTH or 2 when an accident happened, and has continuous upgrades. The US goes into 'shock withdrawal' of a period of 1-2 YEARS when there is an accident.(US is RUN by Lawyers)
Yes Paul, all good points but you're missing the absolutely largest point here...there is NO contemporaneous race to beat the Russians to the moon as there was in the 1960's. If you believe that this country was driven by this ridiculously idealistic goal from JFK to further science and technology to land a man on the moon by the end of the 1960's then you've really not been paying attention. We went to the moon and spent the appropriate amount of money simply and clearly to beat the Russians and when we did, we slowly and meticulously dismantled the manned spaceflight program (yes I do realize the benefit of the Shuttle program). Project Orion and Artemis are certainly lofty goals but please pardon my skepticism until we see results.
Pay a visit to the Huntsville Space Center in Alabama. There they have a scale model of the capsule which clearly demonstrates why they chose the teardrop shape. You can rotate by hand the model in a wind tunnel and feel the forces. The teardrop shape is inherently stable always aiming it's blunt end forward. When you try to rotate it the air flow around it exerts a great force against that motion returning it back to blunt-end forward. What is happening is the air passing around the edges of the blunt end push on the cone exerting a force to straighten it and it pushes until the cone is downstream again and has equal forces around it.
While I admire the work NASA engineers have done despite shifting goals and budget constraints, I'm still disappointed to see all their manned mission plans include SRBs as part of the launch system. SpaceX has the right idea. Invest in totally reusable craft and leave SRBs to the military.
One thing that many people overlook is the cost making a launch vehicle reusable. But not the $$$ cost, the payload cost. If you look at the SpaceX F9, the difference in payload mass to orbit between expendable launch and landing of the first stage, it's about ~60%. This is due to the additional mass of the landing hardware, and the fuel requirement to boostback/ slow and land the booster. SLS would be incapable of performing it's mission if it had to give up 60% of it's payload mass to orbit to make it reusable. As for using the SRB's, they tried to leverage as much of the shuttle tech as possible, and, anything the government does is a "jobs program". Without SLS, Orbital ATK and it's supplier companies would like go under.
@@rocketology1105 Just look at the payload difference between the SLS and Starship. Starship would need 2-3 other starships to refuel it just to be able leave LEO, and SLS can deliver ~50 more tons to LEO I believe.
sorry, Anthony, but I couldn't agree less. btw, SpaceX *doesn't* have a fully reusable vehicle. for missions beyond LEO, they throw away the upper stage just like every other launcher. they do that because both the cost and weight penalties are sufficient to make trying to reuse such a stage impractical.
Too many SpaceX fan boys out there SpaceX has yet to prove It’s human safety record. The solid rocket boosters put more men and women in orbit in any other rocket in the US inventory.
-You forgot to say that each shuttle needed a year long refurbish (Rebuild) before it could be reused. It too really was a one shot vehicle as each refurbish cost as much or sometimes more than the original purchase cost. Even the SRB shells were not all reusable, some had a high rejection rate and needed new shells made. -You are way too young to remember, but good solar cells did not exist back then so solar panels were not available, or lithium batteries, they used the best tech gear we had, a fuel cell. So what you were saying is that everything was the same except for the small things that were updated. And they really were the same size because the Orion may have carried more people, but if you divide the interior space by the number of astronauts, it winds up nearly the same personal space. -It truly was a 1960's format (cone capsule, service module, parachutes, aluminum construction and silicone based heat shield) with year 2000 small tech items added.
Excellent video! Orion has been around for a while now, so I can’t wait to see the first crewed launch! Another interesting point is the destination, Apollo went right into a low orbit around the Moon, whereas Orion will dock with Gateway. Should be interesting
The comment made at the 2:00 point has been oft repeated over the years but the Russians were not as far ahead as they were made out to be. They had bigger boosters which allowed heavier payloads but most of their crewed flights were little more than "Me First" stunts. Who here remembers Voskhod I? They shoe-horned three cosmonauts into a craft designed for two so Pravda could say "Sorry Apollo". Before the end of the Gemini program, the US was ahead to stay.
Wow, this video has really made it clear to me that spaceflight has been standing still for 50 years. The modules are basically the same, designed for the same purpose. This is nothing but Apollo version 1.2.
JRcat...Yep, unfortunately space has now been commercialised, Nd is being set up as the domain of the wealthy, and thanks to POTUS, militarised...I bet JFK is spinning in his grave...todays power people have few morals...
_Wow, this video has really made it clear to me that spaceflight has been standing still for 50 years._ That's because, in regards to the manned Moon missions, the spaceflight _has_ been standing still for 50 years. _The modules are basically the same, designed for the same purpose._ If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Each part of _Apollo_ Command Module had a specific purpose, and those specific purposes haven't really changed. Even then, the design _has_ been improved upon, as explained in the video.
At about 2:52 in the video, all the Apollo/Saturn rockets that went to the moon are shown. Why is it that the service module for Apollo 13 (the only one that blew up) is also the only one painted all white? Coincidence? Or was this some kind of a “special version”?
Nicely done video. Orion is practically a component from Von Braun’s Apollo Applications concept that couldn’t survive the inevitable budget cuts post lunar landings. My opinion is that had Orion been ready in the 90’s or early 2000s it would have perfect timing but being ready in the early 20’s with that insane per seat cost, it doomed for failure (or, at least, the SLS portion is) destine for the minimum flights possible to save face against the sunk cost of the system. With per pound launch cost dropping thanks the SpaceX and Blue Origin and others, it will be impossible to justify SLS and the overweight Orion.
*_"With per pound launch cost dropping thanks the SpaceX and Blue Origin and others, it will be impossible to justify SLS and the overweight Orion."_* I'm sorry but that's just absurd. There is no comparison between commercial launches into LEO and going to the Moon. It's like the difference between driving to the supermarket and driving 1,000 kms across a desert and back. Even the re-entry is completely different.
Constellation was cancelled because it was behind schedule and over budget. (Sound familiar? Auditor just gave same report about SLS). Altair was cancelled because it was also WAY over-budget (SpaceX built entire company / rocket, / capsule on same or less $$ over 10 years).
Excellent work! However, I think you missed the biggest reason that we are back to a "gumdrop" capsule design. It is a matter of historical record that the gumdrop design capsule is not susceptible to damage to its heatshield by debris shed from a large external tank and solid rocket boosters. It is sealed up against the service module until it is needed. It is only exposed just before it needs to complete its mission. This was the fundamental flaw with the Space Shuttle system, the orbiter, with its fragile heat tiles, hanging from the tank was a sitting duck for stuff falling or shedding off the tank. The gumdrop design proved its reliability even after a serious explosion in the service module as occurred in apollo 13. Also, the gumdrop design makes it much easier to escape from a launch vehicle that is breaking up as it can be severed from the main vehicle and pulled to safety as we have just witnessed in the SpaceX qualification test. Crew escape from any other type of vehicle would involve either ejection seats or a self-contained escape capsule to be integrated into the other than gumdrop design.
Absolutely yes. More research should have been done as to the impact of the freon free formulation. Another case of environmentalists driving government policy and affecting things they shouldn't.
Just a thought: Apollo should never have been cancelled. It would have given access to the moon for decades, the development and continuation of Skylab would have been a breeze, no need for ISS or the Space Shuttle. No need to hitch a ride on the Soyuz for the past almost ten years. Apollo could then easily have been developed into Constellation, with enhanced capabilities. A lot of time and money was wasted in the past 50 years due to continuously changing goals and politics.
100% agree! As cool as the space shuttle was, it was a complete waste of money. Had the Apollo program continued, we'd have a full on colony on the moon by now, and probably be exploring Mars as well.
Dragon would need a propulsion module in the trunk and maybe a hab for lunar missions. I am surprised Spacex is not looking into that and going strait to the more ambitious Starship.
Great TH-cam page. Do you post T's to Europe? I think your TH-cam is a GREAT educational support for kids in school, encouraging kids to work harder on their Maths, Physics,. Chemistry and Biology. Space is more part of our lives than ever but not often frames that way.
I would choose the Apollo capsule if I only could go once. 1 upfront cost is lower 2 I like having everything easily seen at a glance 3 nostalgia, be cool to use part of history P.S. having all those dials to look at read, understand, and infer further information from got me wondering about the difference in training cost between the two. Was this included in the price, or was the cost just the hardware?
I'm excited to see this FINALLY happening. But my biggest issue is the cost. Most of the engineering was already done from Apollo and the Space Shuttle. I feel like this is a hack job of left over parts thrown together at an absurd price. But I'm still happy we are going.
I'm pretty sure from an engineering perspective the plans for both ships radically different. Just having smaller computers helps immensely and shrinking tech helps make a leaner ship as we're seeing now. Four per capsule? Plus 8 small engines to maneuver with and power and air is almost a non issue now? It's like comparing a dodge charger from yesteryear and today. The cost comes from building this new and that given price was for a mission of 4 tickets which means the ships price has a lower base. IF this design works well it will be worth the cost and that will go down after the assembly line comes on.
Great video. I moved to the space coast and watched the entire manned space program. As much as the space shuttle was impressive it was nothing compared to the massive Saturn 5 with those powerful F-1 engines which are still the most powerful rocket engine ever built. You could actually feel the power of the Saturn 5 15 miles away and those powerful F-1 engines made our mobile home windows shutter.
Personally, I'll take the capsule that doesn't require a felt-tipped pen to fix a broken circuit breaker switch. Apollo was _amazing,_ but I don't wanna get stuck on the moon. (Great video, TJ!)
Well done! Very well laid out and researched! I have seen too many "science" channels popping up that don't do their research and instead rely on eye-popping graphics, full of misinformation. And if looking for great video idea, a full history of the SLS would be epic! Going all the way back to the SDLV (shuttle derived launch vehicle) through the National Launch Vehicle, Jupiter, and Constellation. I'd love to see that!
Consumables such as food plus the commode uses replaceable waste storage canisters. The DSG(deep space gateway) module will add significantly to the mission duration capability.
Definitely I prefer flying a SpaceX Crew Dragon rather than an Apollo or a Starliner for low earth orbits. And Starship to go to the Moon and to Mars rather than an Orion.
I'm a proud u.s.a.f. veteran but I find it nuts that the u.s. cannot stay laser focused on a mission. instead we change course with every new administration. The Chinese on the other hand stay laser focused on their goals. sad.
The more spacious Orion is the capsule of choice, but not necessarily with 4 astronauts. Therefore, Orion flights are much more expensive unless they can be done with a reusable launcher rather than SLS (two Vulcan or new Glenn launches? One Vulcan or New Glenn launch and a cargo Starship brings an interplanetary propulsion stage?). -Interesting video, thank you.
Some of that "1960s technology" is based in simple things like aerodynamics, balance, utilitarian approach vs. experimental approach, and the desire to create a tool to do a couple of different jobs well enough & long enough to figure out the best way(s) to get to the next job. Orion is NOT tech from the 1960s; it's a physical design based on lessons learned -- sometimes at great human cost -- from the 1960s on through the latest developments.... all limited by funding from a disinterested government. The Dragon capsule (with a slight modification of the same shape) has a different purpose, thus is designed to carry more people and act a little differently -- and was designed & created with the knowledge gained by the 1960s tech you're dissing. The same goes for the Starliner, which is designed more in line with the NASA job description and thus looks more like Apollo than the Dragon. They're all "kissin' cousins" and their passengers will live or die based on how well the lessons of the "1960s technology" have been learned.
Loved that dude...the Orion capsule is probably the most advanced crew cabin there is right now..(props to Lockheed Martin)...it is state of the art in design. They even developed a friction welding technique (something SpaceX could use). This is a welding method that does produce excessive heat, and you even fuse different types of metal together..which can be very difficult to achieve. Great information dude, i learnt stuff watching that....rEspect and peace to ya.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and probably am) but I don't recall Orion undergoing a launch abort test like Space-X just completed. Without that I'll be difficult to justify manning the ship when the competition had to prove itself. Another thing, all very well going on about Orion being reusable, (could probably re used Apollo if you tried hard enough) but the rest of the system apart from the srb's gets dumped, great way to cut seat costs.
Awesome video! Much respect for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo... but I’ll take the ride on Orion for sure! Orion May look like Apollo, but it’s much safer and much more advanced. Can’t wait for future missions!! Thanks for the video!
It doesn't look like Boeing will be going to the ISS this year due to serious software errors. The 737Max will be in the air before Starliner gets another unmanned run.
Very interesting video. It's my first time here and I like very much. I would like to hear in the future more about the recycle system for CO2 to O2. You said it's almost unlimited. Thank you.
Still the same, but improved and modernized. At 100 times the cost, over budget, and longer to develop than the Apollo entire moon program. Talk about a money pit. And still not crewed!
Apollo had a clear goal, a clear deadline and near universal political support. All of which substantially boost efficiency, by benefit or by nessecity. I can't think of any manned program that has had such benefits ever since. Look at the space shuttle, or the space station plans (before the ISS), or everything around Orion. You always see goals and funding shifting, and often times nothing of the original intent remains within the finished product. So anyone trying to push for progress has to juggle multiple political agendas and work off of insecure funding. That is a recipe for inefficiency if I have ever seen one.
Hello sir I stumbled upon your video this video and I think you did a really good job very informative I just wish I would have stumbled upon it sooner than 2 years after it was made but at least I'm here now and I have subscribed and I'll keep looking forward to your videos
I see a lot of comments about the Orion CM just recycling the design of the Apollo CM. Why wouldn't it? It's a tried and tested design with a very high success rate. The difference with Orion is that it wasn't built with Slide-Rules and has modern computing technology.
Another big difference. Apollo crewed by the BEST people our nation could produce. Orion crew slots will be filled via a politically correct quota system. Just watch and see.
Subbed! I think an important note is the safety factors on them. While it seems like "how the heck are we getting to the moon for *more* money 50 years later," it's important to remember that Orion and SLS is FAR safer than Saturn V and Apollo. Anyway, great video! Can't wait to order some of your awesome shirts!
Hello. Your videos are amazing. Will it be posssible for you to do a video comparing of all the space capsules. From past space capsules to ones in development e.g ISRO's Gaganyaan. Showing their diamensions too, both with the service module/trunk and with just the capsule, also in metric units? I have searched myself but cannot find the exact information on some of the spacecraft. Thank you. :)
Nice to find a new space outlet. Lots of strong points and a good presentation. Someone along the way must have missed the 0:37 sponsorship statement because there were three ads. You've probably heard it already of course. NBD if this comment disappears, I'll still be looking out for your content. 👍👍
@@INeedMoreSpace I can't wait for the first "space tourists" to come back from the moon with pictures of the Apollo landing sites, I can just hear all the hoaxers backpedaling now🤣🤣🤣. I'm sure they'll figure out a way of fitting them into their idiot conspiracy theories.
Jacques Van Dyk The ”nuking” was just an ordinarie military thing, as an answer on Soviets experiments. They never tried to get through any ”Dome”. Do You believe every silly writing on youtube?? Of course, the Shuttle didn’t have any ”concrete” on it. Way too heavier and totally meaningless. No Shuttle ever was on Moon. They were not built to manage such a Journey.
I was 10 when Apollo 11 landed, so clearly I am of the Apollo generation. Comparing the Apollo Command Module to Orion would be like me comparing Rocky and Bullwinkle to Sponge Bob. The sentimental favorite from childhood wins out! As for mobility, 3 crew members in Apollo have about the same individual space as 4 in Orion. But there is the matter of the Orion toilet. That's a vast improvement over the no-fun Apollo way. Both craft are great. The ablative material for re-entry and its meticulous installation are the finest!
@@crosbyking5665 The Apollo made the Mercury look like a Model T. The Space Shuttle made the Apollo look like a Model T. And at the close of the Shuttle program, I read that you couldn't get $50 if you sold the shuttle's computers at a yard sale. Things change exponentially.
New subscriber. As the author of a 6 book series on spaceflight, I have to say that this is one of the best video comparisons I've seen. Nicely done (especially considering that it was made 2+ years ago) Please keep up the good work TJ.
Thank you for posting. Informative. I suspect that the ISS commercial crew program will eclipse the Orion program to the point that the major difference between Apollo and Orion capsule will be that Orion gets cancelled before it gets used for real. Orion and SLS are likely to join the Constellation program into the bit bucket of history.
Considering how that the current regime in power now 2022 is sending our country towards bankruptcy . I would not be surprised that Orion gets canceled.
Why didn't they make Orion even bigger? Surely carrying a bit more air and a minimal amount of extra metal structure wouldn't add much to the weight in the scheme of things?
@@EASYTIGER10 It adds a significant amount of weight actually. The ICPS stage of SLS block 1 is underpowered as is. You'd need the Exploration Upper Stage for that (which is still in development) and a brand new service module. NASA has decided that the astronauts will be fine on the capsule for the duration of the first few planned moon missions. Now for longer and more distant missions, NASA has proposed making the Deep Space Habitat. It is planned to function like a small space station that will be sent up with the Exploration Upper Stage. Orion can dock with it and give astronauts a much larger living space. We likely won't see the Deep Space Habitat soon because that was originally planned for Mars missions. The progress NASA made with the habitat is now being transferred to the Lunar Gateway space station.
In the last 20 years or so there have been so many idea's...or suggestions on future space missions and spacecraft.....well I will believe it when I see an Astronaut standing on the Moon again after a half century.
9:05 "Using a recycled space shuttle orbital maneuvering engine" That's the AJ10 rocket engine, which uses hypergolic fuels. Funny enough, that's the same engine that was used for the Apollo service propulsion system! The lineage is strong between these 2 craft is very strong.
I was onboard USS ANCHORAGE for the Orion exploratory Flight 1 recovery. I watched Orion splashdown and we pulled her into our well deck. I was part of the team trained to ensure the capsule did not sustain damage from fire or regular ship board movements
oo i saw the the video in youtube
Mercury & Gemini get no respect, but perfected the tech needed by Apollo to get to the moon.
Especially, Gemini. Gusmobile gets no love
Lot of respect from me.
Riiiiiiight
good on u
Gemini was a sexy craft imo
@@jerminnigor4095 Agena thought so too !
Forks & knives haven't changed much in centuries. The basic shapes are forms that follow function. The cone capsule works.
Amen ! "If it ain't broke, don't fix it !"
SpaceX: "Give me a spoon."
@@jesussard that "spoon" exploded last year. "forks and knifes" couldn't explode
@@inemanjaWhat
@@cursedcliff7562 read the previous comments. dragon contains hypergolic fuels in landing phase - apollo and orion ditch all "escape hardware during the ascent". ok?
316 Cubic feet!! Any NYC native should be more than comfortable in that thing!
Beach&BoardFan Yeah, but you need one point twenty-one gigawatts to power the air conditioner in a NYC Summer.
😆
for 6 months in a car with your 3 buddies? NY'ers would kill each other long before then.
If a cozy NYC studio apartment has 8’ ceilings then it’s probably around 1600-2400 cu ft...
Know that when you said roomy capsule, you are basing it on "cubic" feet...meaning measuring upwards as well, "not" just side to side space as in "square" feet. Orion capsule is just slightly wider in diameter then Apollo capsule...the extra room comes in leaving out the 1960's computer's and switches of the Apollo capsule. The reason for NASA going back to Apollo shape/design is because so they can use the emergency abort system of Apollo....that of which the crew didn't have designed into the Space Shuttle fleet, resulted into the fatal Challenger crew of seven(7) to needlessly all loose their life on takes-off in 1996.
50+ years later and we still don't have a moonbase like in Space: 1999. What a disappointment that we haven't effectively built on the foundation that was laid in the 1960s.
@J Calhoun Wasn't it Nixon who took the greenback off the gold standard?
@J Calhoun Yeah, OK you're one of them. I get it. Everyone is entitled to their own idea of when history began.
@J Calhoun I lived through those times too and you have no idea what my politics are or if I have any. Having said that, why don't you be my teacher? Please tell me what exactly it was that Carter did that is "the root cause of most of our current middle east problems". Also, please define "our" in this context.
@J Calhoun Thank you for going on record for all to see. That's all I need.
I have to blame scientists ...they haven't been able during the last 60 years to figure out how to escape gravity at reasonable prices....just now, during the last 10 years) the mix of new technology ( computers, new material,etc), entrepreneurs (Bezos, Musk, Branson, etc) and NASA new policy have reverse the previous trend ...others countries like China, Europe India etc have profited of new advances...but we had to wait more than 50 years
a couple of errors in the video:
number 1: nasa was directed to go to the moon in 2017 not 2019, 2019 was when they accelerated those goals
number 2: EFT-1 was in 2014 not 2012
thank you for spotting this. I covered a lot of ground and sometimes things slip through the cracks. I need to find some reliable fact-checkers to work with.
I corrected these issues in the caption file. thanks again for pointing this out!
NASA was directed to go to the moon in 2004. SLS/Artemis is pretty much just a reboot of Ares. Even in 2004, the plan was to not actually do anything until 2020.
Brandon Smythe ? I just spotted errors in the video, not like I said that I could do better
Eli Harman not really, that plan was to go the ISS by 2015 and then when the Ares V entered operation , launch the Orion 13 mission and Ares V rocket with Altair and dock in orbit and then use the EDS to go to TLI and then land. Ares V was barely funded and Altair was never funded, the only thing that really got funding is the ISS part since that was nearer in the future. When constellation was announced, the moon return was 16 years in the future. Now when Artemis was announced, the moon return was 5 years in the future and now we got a fully functional moon rocket, moon capsule and 600 million dollars of funding for the lunar lander. The approach is different as well. Constellation had ISS involved and 2 rockets. Artemis does not use ISS and uses 1 rocket. Artemis builds a lunar space station around the moon while constellation was similar to Apollo
During the explanation of the Apollo spacecraft heat shield, the video showed the Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System Ceramic Tile coming out of a high temperature furnace. The Apollo Heat Shield was hand made from a honeycomb assembly with a heat ablative material injected into each honeycomb tube by workers. It was designed to burn away taking the heat along with it.
Right you are... and the Orion uses very similar ablative material on it's heat shield as well!
Mercury
Gemini
Apollo
Orion
Safe, proven shape.
Soviets/Russians:hold my beer
And Artemis?
@@SnowboardScientist Orion is the crew module of the SLS and the SLS is a part of the Artemis program
they're the first four planets rocky like ours.
Soyuz, Dragon, Crew Dragon, Starliner.
Someone who gives Orion the attention it deserves. I feel most spaceflight youtubers gloss over project artemis altogether.
Sadly most youtubers preffer juicy bit fake clickbaits than amazing things
@@cin806 you are talking only about phase 1. 2020-2024. Meanwhile there is also much more interesting phase 2, including plasma powered DSS. Lets be honest, if SpaceX will not adapt, plasma propulsion will throw starship off the market
@@cin806 It's not that I don't like starship. It's just that if moon exploration doesn't turn a hardy profit than nope
They are canceling the Artemis program keep sucking Boeing off
@@cin806 Its being canceled so Boeing can keep milking NASA dry with its job program SLS= Shelby launch scam
I just found this channel. I really enjoyed the comparison between the two capsules. A small thing I noticed was at 12:41 when talking about the ablative heat shields made for the capsules from the 60's you showed the silicon based cube tiles opposed to the pain-in-the-ass resin based heat shields that were actually used. Great job on the video.
Great vid!! I go Orion. Much respect to Mercury, Gemini and Apollo of course👍🏾
Yup 👌 Apollo lunar module is my favourite spacecraft though ☺
Apollo 9?................Can't forget the awesome job done by McDivitt, Scott & Schweikart!
The modern NASA human spaceflight division is a jobs program more than a science program.
Thats why spacex is soo important
Exactly, comparing the Apollo program to the Orion program is like comparing fact versus fiction.
It's a skills program.. You are training people with high end skills. That takes years to produce..Why Rome fell.. It lost all the people that had the skills. To rebuild it. Once you lose them. You are stagnant and decay...Just how nature works. It weeds out the unproductive...
@@carso1500 nah it really ain't
Quick thing. You were showing space shuttle heat tiles while talking about ablative heat shields. The space shuttle's heat shields were non-ablative. They just absorbed, transferred, and radiated the heat, they didn't burn away.
Dude you're awesome. Keep it up. Love the news, updates and history on all things space.
That was outstanding. The first full explanation on the new spacecraft I've seen.
Ares I was not cancelled because it was overtime and budget...
It was cancelled, because like the shuttle, it was dangerous, and had an extremely limited abort window.
SLS is a giant make -work and pork barrel project for the Alabama Aerospace mafia. Orion would have made an excellent successor to the Apollo capsules, but is quite a few years late.
Great videos! I can still remember as a young kid watching the Apollo missions on tv.
Great video, however, one correction. Max temps that the ablative heat shield on Apollo CMs had to contend with were around 5000 degrees F., not 25000 degrees.
WAIT you left out the other apollos. (Sorry, I lived through these.). This shows how they gradually tested out capabilities one by one without taking any big steps that could have failed miserably.
Apollo 1: speaking of failing miserably, the first astronauts in the US space program to die, died on the launchpad when the interior of Apollo 1 caught fire. The standard atmosphere in US spacecraft was 5psi at 100% oxygen, thinking that a lower pressure would be safer in outer space. Well, the 100% oxygen wasn't. Fire swept through quickly. Gus Grissom (second mercury) died with the other two. The sealed capsule got like red hot on the outside. Big investigation, big overhaul, no more 100% oxygen, no flammable materials inside. Doors that open outward instead of inward. Etc.
Apollo 2-6: unmanned tests. don't mess this up again guys.
Apollo 7: JUST the command and svs modules, in earth orbit. Make sure the basics work. yawn.
Apollo 8: Same, but orbit around the Moon! This was the christmas thing where Frank Borman read out of Genesis, and took photos of the earth rising up from the surface of the moon, and everybody got emotional about how we were just a little blue planet in big space. Everybody remembers this one.
Apollo 9: They finally got the Lunar Module (lander) working, but Only in Earth orbit. Rusty Schweikert climbed out and they had special foot inserts in the front porch to keep hm from drifting away. Everybody ignored this one too.
Apollo 10: All together now, orbit Moon AND the Lunar Module! But, just to test out both at once, no landing. And, a good thing they did. Turns out, the moon has funny gravitational stuff going on. The lunar module separated, they descended partway down, fired up the upper stage and tried to rendezvous and it didn't go well. I remember hearing these astronauts swearing on national television trying to find each other. Another learning curve for NASA.
Apollo 11: Dad let me stay up all night for this one. Kikkin up some dust. That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. He did say 'for man' not 'for a man' even though that was what he intended to say.
Dude, I'm the son of one of the guys who built the F-1 engines. I have touched one, when I was 10. My dad was some sort of big wig in the factory. He never called himself anything but a Lead Man, but he had a design change suggestion that was used and he met Werner Von Braun. He worked at the Canoga Park Rocketdyne complex.
The Apollo program financed my childhood.
@@dks13827 because they lost the plans. And my dad is gone.
This feels almost exactly like a promotional video straight from NASA, but with more depth.
Amazing work!!!
You omitted talking about getting astronauts safely thru the Van Allen belts. This has been a primary concern of NASA's dating back to
the Gemini missions.
@Supercede Good! Runnin With The Devil is a good start.
Retiring the space shuttle was a disaster. We had the most flexible and sophisticated spacecraft ever conceived, and we threw it away. With commercial options like SpaceX and Starliner becoming available, the shuttle could have gotten out of the space taxi business (which it was overkill for anyway) and focused on a new set of specialized missions that took advantage of it's unique capabilities. Fewer missions per year would mean less pressure on the program, greater safety margins, and lower costs. And it could be used as a construction and launching platform for deep-space missions. We could use it to transport components for moon and mars missions and assemble them in space, without having to rely on tiny capsules and design entirely new heavy launch vehicles to get them off the planet.
The money they're wasting on all these new systems (that are actually a huge step backward in capability) should have been spent on a deep refit and upgrade of the shuttle system, along with a new mission set. We could have done anything with the shuttle. Instead we lacked the imagination and foresight to think outside the box.
Space shuttle was expensive and a death trap.
Does your price per seat comparison take Orions re-usability into account?
When you take into account the billion+ dollar throw away launch vehicle the actual price per seat cost is likely to be stunning.
Even though most of this info was available before elsewhere, this is the best single collection of information I can find in video form.
US got to the Moon in only 9 years, from a start of NO maned spaceflights at all, in an era of slide rules, mechanical calculators, computers that took up entire floors of a building, and hundreds of manual draftsmen. Today it is almost 10 years since ending a maned spaceflight system, and STILL no new flights have happened yet, in an era of super computers, CAD design, worldwide communications, etc, despite having DECADES of experience. Meanwhile, Russia has plodded along with essentially the same hardware for 20 years, and only pauses of a MONTH or 2 when an accident happened, and has continuous upgrades. The US goes into 'shock withdrawal' of a period of 1-2 YEARS when there is an accident.(US is RUN by Lawyers)
Yes Paul, all good points but you're missing the absolutely largest point here...there is NO contemporaneous race to beat the Russians to the moon as there was in the 1960's. If you believe that this country was driven by this ridiculously idealistic goal from JFK to further science and technology to land a man on the moon by the end of the 1960's then you've really not been paying attention. We went to the moon and spent the appropriate amount of money simply and clearly to beat the Russians and when we did, we slowly and meticulously dismantled the manned spaceflight program (yes I do realize the benefit of the Shuttle program). Project Orion and Artemis are certainly lofty goals but please pardon my skepticism until we see results.
You willfully ”forget” to take the enormously decreased funds into consideration.
Pay a visit to the Huntsville Space Center in Alabama. There they have a scale model of the capsule which clearly demonstrates why they chose the teardrop shape. You can rotate by hand the model in a wind tunnel and feel the forces. The teardrop shape is inherently stable always aiming it's blunt end forward. When you try to rotate it the air flow around it exerts a great force against that motion returning it back to blunt-end forward. What is happening is the air passing around the edges of the blunt end push on the cone exerting a force to straighten it and it pushes until the cone is downstream again and has equal forces around it.
While I admire the work NASA engineers have done despite shifting goals and budget constraints, I'm still disappointed to see all their manned mission plans include SRBs as part of the launch system. SpaceX has the right idea. Invest in totally reusable craft and leave SRBs to the military.
One thing that many people overlook is the cost making a launch vehicle reusable. But not the $$$ cost, the payload cost. If you look at the SpaceX F9, the difference in payload mass to orbit between expendable launch and landing of the first stage, it's about ~60%. This is due to the additional mass of the landing hardware, and the fuel requirement to boostback/ slow and land the booster. SLS would be incapable of performing it's mission if it had to give up 60% of it's payload mass to orbit to make it reusable.
As for using the SRB's, they tried to leverage as much of the shuttle tech as possible, and, anything the government does is a "jobs program". Without SLS, Orbital ATK and it's supplier companies would like go under.
@@rocketology1105 Just look at the payload difference between the SLS and Starship. Starship would need 2-3 other starships to refuel it just to be able leave LEO, and SLS can deliver ~50 more tons to LEO I believe.
sorry, Anthony, but I couldn't agree less. btw, SpaceX *doesn't* have a fully reusable vehicle. for missions beyond LEO, they throw away the upper stage just like every other launcher. they do that because both the cost and weight penalties are sufficient to make trying to reuse such a stage impractical.
Too many SpaceX fan boys out there SpaceX has yet to prove It’s human safety record. The solid rocket boosters put more men and women in orbit in any other rocket in the US inventory.
@@pzoe3808 And killed more men too ;-)
-You forgot to say that each shuttle needed a year long refurbish (Rebuild) before it could be reused. It too really was a one shot vehicle as each refurbish cost as much or sometimes more than the original purchase cost. Even the SRB shells were not all reusable, some had a high rejection rate and needed new shells made.
-You are way too young to remember, but good solar cells did not exist back then so solar panels were not available, or lithium batteries, they used the best tech gear we had, a fuel cell. So what you were saying is that everything was the same except for the small things that were updated. And they really were the same size because the Orion may have carried more people, but if you divide the interior space by the number of astronauts, it winds up nearly the same personal space.
-It truly was a 1960's format (cone capsule, service module, parachutes, aluminum construction and silicone based heat shield) with year 2000 small tech items added.
Excellent video! Orion has been around for a while now, so I can’t wait to see the first crewed launch! Another interesting point is the destination, Apollo went right into a low orbit around the Moon, whereas Orion will dock with Gateway. Should be interesting
The comment made at the 2:00 point has been oft repeated over the years but the Russians were not as far ahead as they were made out to be. They had bigger boosters which allowed heavier payloads but most of their crewed flights were little more than "Me First" stunts. Who here remembers Voskhod I? They shoe-horned three cosmonauts into a craft designed for two so Pravda could say "Sorry Apollo". Before the end of the Gemini program, the US was ahead to stay.
Wow, this video has really made it clear to me that spaceflight has been standing still for 50 years. The modules are basically the same, designed for the same purpose. This is nothing but Apollo version 1.2.
JRcat...Yep, unfortunately space has now been commercialised, Nd is being set up as the domain of the wealthy, and thanks to POTUS, militarised...I bet JFK is spinning in his grave...todays power people have few morals...
And it has as much chance of reaching the moon as they had in 1969. It's all illusion snd hoax.
@@WSCLATER In your delusional head yes.
_Wow, this video has really made it clear to me that spaceflight has been standing still for 50 years._
That's because, in regards to the manned Moon missions, the spaceflight _has_ been standing still for 50 years.
_The modules are basically the same, designed for the same purpose._
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Each part of _Apollo_ Command Module had a specific purpose, and those specific purposes haven't really changed. Even then, the design _has_ been improved upon, as explained in the video.
I hate to saa you are right
At about 2:52 in the video, all the Apollo/Saturn rockets that went to the moon are shown. Why is it that the service module for Apollo 13 (the only one that blew up) is also the only one painted all white? Coincidence? Or was this some kind of a “special version”?
Upgraded bathrooms?
Orion.
No Apollo bags for me!
Oh my goodness 😃 i know, poor astronauts had to make sure it all went in the bag...a crude way of going to the bathroom 👌
Tks om. Was here for the first. Now hope to watch the next Set.
Excellent comparison and historical perspective.
Don’t forget Apollo 7!
Cool, the Orion project will be exciting to follow. Thanks for the video!
How could anyone be comfortable going to mars in Orion? That thing is tiny for an extended mission
I believe for the Mars mission it would actually have an additional module for living space.
Nothing beats the Saturn V the roar from the 5 F-1 Engines burning kerosene. Solid Rocket boosters are not as impressive.
Nicely done video.
Orion is practically a component from Von Braun’s Apollo Applications concept that couldn’t survive the inevitable budget cuts post lunar landings. My opinion is that had Orion been ready in the 90’s or early 2000s it would have perfect timing but being ready in the early 20’s with that insane per seat cost, it doomed for failure (or, at least, the SLS portion is) destine for the minimum flights possible to save face against the sunk cost of the system.
With per pound launch cost dropping thanks the SpaceX and Blue Origin and others, it will be impossible to justify SLS and the overweight Orion.
*_"With per pound launch cost dropping thanks the SpaceX and Blue Origin and others, it will be impossible to justify SLS and the overweight Orion."_*
I'm sorry but that's just absurd. There is no comparison between commercial launches into LEO and going to the Moon. It's like the difference between driving to the supermarket and driving 1,000 kms across a desert and back. Even the re-entry is completely different.
Constellation was cancelled because it was behind schedule and over budget. (Sound familiar? Auditor just gave same report about SLS).
Altair was cancelled because it was also WAY over-budget (SpaceX built entire company / rocket, / capsule on same or less $$ over 10 years).
Excellent work! However, I think you missed the biggest reason that we are back to a "gumdrop" capsule design. It is a matter of historical record that the gumdrop design capsule is not susceptible to damage to its heatshield by debris shed from a large external tank and solid rocket boosters. It is sealed up against the service module until it is needed. It is only exposed just before it needs to complete its mission. This was the fundamental flaw with the Space Shuttle system, the orbiter, with its fragile heat tiles, hanging from the tank was a sitting duck for stuff falling or shedding off the tank. The gumdrop design proved its reliability even after a serious explosion in the service module as occurred in apollo 13. Also, the gumdrop design makes it much easier to escape from a launch vehicle that is breaking up as it can be severed from the main vehicle and pulled to safety as we have just witnessed in the SpaceX qualification test. Crew escape from any other type of vehicle would involve either ejection seats or a self-contained escape capsule to be integrated into the other than gumdrop design.
It didn't help the Shuttle that the EPA required the insulation on the big orange tank to be CFC-free. The original formulation didn't come loose.
Absolutely yes. More research should have been done as to the impact of the freon free formulation. Another case of environmentalists driving government policy and affecting things they shouldn't.
Gemini had ejection seats. Not preferable since it could have killed them but... just saying.
Just a thought: Apollo should never have been cancelled. It would have given access to the moon for decades, the development and continuation of Skylab would have been a breeze, no need for ISS or the Space Shuttle. No need to hitch a ride on the Soyuz for the past almost ten years. Apollo could then easily have been developed into Constellation, with enhanced capabilities. A lot of time and money was wasted in the past 50 years due to continuously changing goals and politics.
It's a sad thing
100% agree! As cool as the space shuttle was, it was a complete waste of money. Had the Apollo program continued, we'd have a full on colony on the moon by now, and probably be exploring Mars as well.
I prefer the dragon capsule or the starshipm
Well, dragon looks nice, but technicly, it's worse. It doesn't have multiroom structure and TOILET
The dragon isn't capable of deep space missions only starship is.
Dragon would need a propulsion module in the trunk and maybe a hab for lunar missions.
I am surprised Spacex is not looking into that and going strait to the more ambitious Starship.
Patchuchan dragon is only meant for ferrying passengers, and going to the moon. That’s why spaceX is working on them both at the same time.
Patchuchan
They have looked into that, it was called the red dragon. 🐉
Feasible, but starship is cheaper.
Great TH-cam page. Do you post T's to Europe? I think your TH-cam is a GREAT educational support for kids in school, encouraging kids to work harder on their Maths, Physics,. Chemistry and Biology. Space is more part of our lives than ever but not often frames that way.
I would choose the Apollo capsule if I only could go once.
1 upfront cost is lower
2 I like having everything easily seen at a glance
3 nostalgia, be cool to use part of history
P.S. having all those dials to look at read, understand, and infer further information from got me wondering about the difference in training cost between the two. Was this included in the price, or was the cost just the hardware?
the apollo craft is decommisioned due to the program ending. the craft cannot be used anymore.
Excellent synopsis of the developments of the last 50 years.!
I'm excited to see this FINALLY happening. But my biggest issue is the cost. Most of the engineering was already done from Apollo and the Space Shuttle. I feel like this is a hack job of left over parts thrown together at an absurd price. But I'm still happy we are going.
I'm pretty sure from an engineering perspective the plans for both ships radically different. Just having smaller computers helps immensely and shrinking tech helps make a leaner ship as we're seeing now. Four per capsule? Plus 8 small engines to maneuver with and power and air is almost a non issue now? It's like comparing a dodge charger from yesteryear and today. The cost comes from building this new and that given price was for a mission of 4 tickets which means the ships price has a lower base. IF this design works well it will be worth the cost and that will go down after the assembly line comes on.
Great video. I moved to the space coast and watched the entire manned space program. As much as the space shuttle was impressive it was nothing compared to the massive Saturn 5 with those powerful F-1 engines which are still the most powerful rocket engine ever built. You could actually feel the power of the Saturn 5 15 miles away and those powerful F-1 engines made our mobile home windows shutter.
Nice visuals 👍🏻
Keep up the good work. You may on your way to 1 million subscribers by the end of the year 👍
Boeing can’t even put a spacecraft in orbit. What an expensive piece of junk we all had to pay for.
They did send a spacecraft into orbit...
First visit to your channel. Very informative and well edited. Not a hard decision, Subscribed... Looking forward to watching old and new content.
Personally, I'll take the capsule that doesn't require a felt-tipped pen to fix a broken circuit breaker switch. Apollo was _amazing,_ but I don't wanna get stuck on the moon. (Great video, TJ!)
Didn’t NASA Orion program get canceled then involved into commercial Program .S.L.S=(space launch system)? If they aren’t what’s difference?
Well done! Very well laid out and researched! I have seen too many "science" channels popping up that don't do their research and instead rely on eye-popping graphics, full of misinformation. And if looking for great video idea, a full history of the SLS would be epic! Going all the way back to the SDLV (shuttle derived launch vehicle) through the National Launch Vehicle, Jupiter, and Constellation. I'd love to see that!
Given the CO2 scrubbers, solar panels, and ability to recycle water why are they limited to just 21 days? What is the limiting factor?
Consumables such as food plus the commode uses replaceable waste storage canisters. The DSG(deep space gateway) module will add significantly to the mission duration capability.
Definitely I prefer flying a SpaceX Crew Dragon rather than an Apollo or a Starliner for low earth orbits. And Starship to go to the Moon and to Mars rather than an Orion.
@@dks13827 That is the reason why I said SpaceX Crew Dragon for Low Earth Orbit and Starship to the Moon and Mars.
I'm a proud u.s.a.f. veteran but I find it nuts that the u.s. cannot stay laser focused on a mission. instead we change course with every new administration. The Chinese on the other hand stay laser focused on their goals. sad.
Just when I was thinking I need more space!
The more spacious Orion is the capsule of choice, but not necessarily with 4 astronauts. Therefore, Orion flights are much more expensive unless they can be done with a reusable launcher rather than SLS (two Vulcan or new Glenn launches? One Vulcan or New Glenn launch and a cargo Starship brings an interplanetary propulsion stage?). -Interesting video, thank you.
It's a stupid capsule, 1960's technology that's been upgraded like a house on HGTV.
Orion is better than Apollo in most metrics. It's larger, lighter and most likely safer.
Some of that "1960s technology" is based in simple things like aerodynamics, balance, utilitarian approach vs. experimental approach, and the desire to create a tool to do a couple of different jobs well enough & long enough to figure out the best way(s) to get to the next job. Orion is NOT tech from the 1960s; it's a physical design based on lessons learned -- sometimes at great human cost -- from the 1960s on through the latest developments.... all limited by funding from a disinterested government. The Dragon capsule (with a slight modification of the same shape) has a different purpose, thus is designed to carry more people and act a little differently -- and was designed & created with the knowledge gained by the 1960s tech you're dissing. The same goes for the Starliner, which is designed more in line with the NASA job description and thus looks more like Apollo than the Dragon. They're all "kissin' cousins" and their passengers will live or die based on how well the lessons of the "1960s technology" have been learned.
If it ain't broke dont fix it
Loved that dude...the Orion capsule is probably the most advanced crew cabin there is right now..(props to Lockheed Martin)...it is state of the art in design. They even developed a friction welding technique (something SpaceX could use). This is a welding method that does produce excessive heat, and you even fuse different types of metal together..which can be very difficult to achieve. Great information dude, i learnt stuff watching that....rEspect and peace to ya.
NASA: *still innovating after 50 years*
Apple: *can't innovate anymore*
Correct me if I'm wrong (and probably am) but I don't recall Orion undergoing a launch abort test like Space-X just completed. Without that I'll be difficult to justify manning the ship when the competition had to prove itself. Another thing, all very well going on about Orion being reusable, (could probably re used Apollo if you tried hard enough) but the rest of the system apart from the srb's gets dumped, great way to cut seat costs.
DieyoungDiefast Orion did do a very successful in flight abort a few months ago
As much as i love it, i would not travel in an Apollo for the lack of toilet.
There is a toilet, just not what you think a toilet is.
@@bryanchong1713 Don't want to cut my poop with two finger holes in a bag. Thank you.
Awesome video! Much respect for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo... but I’ll take the ride on Orion for sure! Orion May look like Apollo, but it’s much safer and much more advanced. Can’t wait for future missions!! Thanks for the video!
In my latest episode, I pit Starliner and Crew Dragon head to heard. A must watch!!! 🐉🚀 th-cam.com/video/rbBY1W7aRp0/w-d-xo.html
How many stupid ads will you put man? Adblocked
@@davidt8087 are you a patron?
It doesn't look like Boeing will be going to the ISS this year due to serious software errors. The 737Max will be in the air before Starliner gets another unmanned run.
I don't see any difference between Orion capsule and Apollo Command Service module. Orion capsule is the old technology of the Apollo program!
Very interesting video. It's my first time here and I like very much. I would like to hear in the future more about the recycle system for CO2 to O2. You said it's almost unlimited. Thank you.
Still the same, but improved and modernized. At 100 times the cost, over budget, and longer to develop than the Apollo entire moon program. Talk about a money pit. And still not crewed!
Apollo had a clear goal, a clear deadline and near universal political support. All of which substantially boost efficiency, by benefit or by nessecity. I can't think of any manned program that has had such benefits ever since. Look at the space shuttle, or the space station plans (before the ISS), or everything around Orion.
You always see goals and funding shifting, and often times nothing of the original intent remains within the finished product.
So anyone trying to push for progress has to juggle multiple political agendas and work off of insecure funding.
That is a recipe for inefficiency if I have ever seen one.
Apollo vs orion... summed up, Apollo program actually left the launch pad... there ya go.
Hmm im in the only 19% that likes apollo more than orion 🤔
How did you calculate the seat costs?
Obama administration: Do this
Trump administration: no do that
NASA: WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM MEEEEEEEEEEEE 😭😭😭
More like...
Obama administration: cut costs/programs
This has been going back all the way to Clinton’s presidency
Obama , nasa will put all its effort into musilum appreciation.
Money.
Hannah R. true
Which of the capsules came back with some type of symbols welded into the surface? Bottom and right of the door.
I like penguin
I like penguins too but you have lost me on this!
@@INeedMoreSpace what do you mean? I like penguin
Also, nice video
Hello sir I stumbled upon your video this video and I think you did a really good job very informative I just wish I would have stumbled upon it sooner than 2 years after it was made but at least I'm here now and I have subscribed and I'll keep looking forward to your videos
GEMIN - EYE
speed7exc Sorry, it was pronounced Geminee.
I see a lot of comments about the Orion CM just recycling the design of the Apollo CM. Why wouldn't it? It's a tried and tested design with a very high success rate. The difference with Orion is that it wasn't built with Slide-Rules and has modern computing technology.
Another big difference. Apollo crewed by the BEST people our nation could produce. Orion crew slots will be filled via a politically correct quota system. Just watch and see.
Subbed! I think an important note is the safety factors on them. While it seems like "how the heck are we getting to the moon for *more* money 50 years later," it's important to remember that Orion and SLS is FAR safer than Saturn V and Apollo.
Anyway, great video! Can't wait to order some of your awesome shirts!
??? The Saturn V was the most successful SAFEST rocket ever built in history, not sure what your talking about
disliked because no metric units
Orion will be reusable? Not the first CM from Artemis, only parts, correct?
If you liked this video, then you'll LOVE my comparison on Blue Origin and SpaceX 😮🚀th-cam.com/video/G3KNmQ_IysU/w-d-xo.html
Hello. Your videos are amazing. Will it be posssible for you to do a video comparing of all the space capsules. From past space capsules to ones in development e.g ISRO's Gaganyaan. Showing their diamensions too, both with the service module/trunk and with just the capsule, also in metric units? I have searched myself but cannot find the exact information on some of the spacecraft. Thank you. :)
@@Raj_Luthra great idea! that's a ton of work, but I'm gonna add it to my list
Nearly Unlimited oxigen? Unlimited?! Come on stop making shit up..
Nice to find a new space outlet. Lots of strong points and a good presentation. Someone along the way must have missed the 0:37 sponsorship statement because there were three ads. You've probably heard it already of course. NBD if this comment disappears, I'll still be looking out for your content. 👍👍
@@INeedMoreSpace
I can't wait for the first "space tourists" to come back from the moon with pictures of the Apollo landing sites, I can just hear all the hoaxers backpedaling now🤣🤣🤣.
I'm sure they'll figure out a way of fitting them into their idiot conspiracy theories.
Great video trying to show it's not 60s and 80s tech and proving it's 60s and 80s tech + touch screens.
Space capsules worked in the same fundamental ways in the 70's as they do now
Of course they are going to be similar
@@brokensoap1717 brilliant
Hi, well I do not know about all this. Tell me, how do they get past the Van Allen belt?
Jacques Van Dyk. They flew inside the spacecraft. What did You think?
Jacques Van Dyk The ”nuking” was just an ordinarie military thing, as an answer on Soviets experiments. They never tried to get through any ”Dome”. Do You believe every silly writing on youtube?? Of course, the Shuttle didn’t have any ”concrete” on it. Way too heavier and totally meaningless. No Shuttle ever was on Moon. They were not built to manage such a Journey.
@@YDDES well i do not know what to say i am looking at your stuff must i believe it or not 🙂
So they slapped a new coat of paint to the Apollo . . .
I was 10 when Apollo 11 landed, so clearly I am of the Apollo generation. Comparing the Apollo Command Module to Orion would be like me comparing Rocky and Bullwinkle to Sponge Bob. The sentimental favorite from childhood wins out! As for mobility, 3 crew members in Apollo have about the same individual space as 4 in Orion. But there is the matter of the Orion toilet. That's a vast improvement over the no-fun Apollo way. Both craft are great. The ablative material for re-entry and its meticulous installation are the finest!
I was 10 too! Both spacecraft were marvels for their time
@@crosbyking5665 The Apollo made the Mercury look like a Model T. The Space Shuttle made the Apollo look like a Model T. And at the close of the Shuttle program, I read that you couldn't get $50 if you sold the shuttle's computers at a yard sale. Things change exponentially.
A seat on Orion may cost more but it is worth more. It's a better value. For one matter, the mission duration is much extended.
orion its apollo with touchscreens but fifty years later, got it.
New subscriber. As the author of a 6 book series on spaceflight, I have to say that this is one of the best video comparisons I've seen. Nicely done (especially considering that it was made 2+ years ago) Please keep up the good work TJ.
Thank you for posting. Informative. I suspect that the ISS commercial crew program will eclipse the Orion program to the point that the major difference between Apollo and Orion capsule will be that Orion gets cancelled before it gets used for real. Orion and SLS are likely to join the Constellation program into the bit bucket of history.
Considering how that the current regime in power now 2022 is sending our country towards bankruptcy . I would not be surprised that Orion gets canceled.
Can Orion go to the International Space Station. What's the what was the goal of the constellation program low earth orbit and deep space?
No matter how much better these space craft get, the Apollo command module will always be the best!
Astronauts can leave if for months at a time? And go where?
Technically they can leave it for months on orbit while they descend on a lunar lander and remain on the moon and stay on a base of some sort.
Why didn't they make Orion even bigger? Surely carrying a bit more air and a minimal amount of extra metal structure wouldn't add much to the weight in the scheme of things?
why would they need too?
@@unownyoutuber9049 Psychological. Giving people that little bit more space can help living in a cramped environment for a longer period
@@EASYTIGER10 It adds a significant amount of weight actually. The ICPS stage of SLS block 1 is underpowered as is. You'd need the Exploration Upper Stage for that (which is still in development) and a brand new service module. NASA has decided that the astronauts will be fine on the capsule for the duration of the first few planned moon missions. Now for longer and more distant missions, NASA has proposed making the Deep Space Habitat. It is planned to function like a small space station that will be sent up with the Exploration Upper Stage. Orion can dock with it and give astronauts a much larger living space. We likely won't see the Deep Space Habitat soon because that was originally planned for Mars missions. The progress NASA made with the habitat is now being transferred to the Lunar Gateway space station.
In the last 20 years or so there have been so many idea's...or suggestions on future space missions and spacecraft.....well I will believe it when I see an Astronaut standing on the Moon again after a half century.
why didnt you explain how they got around the radiation problem.
9:05 "Using a recycled space shuttle orbital maneuvering engine"
That's the AJ10 rocket engine, which uses hypergolic fuels. Funny enough, that's the same engine that was used for the Apollo service propulsion system! The lineage is strong between these 2 craft is very strong.