Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
I remember explaining to the adults why Apollo 13 couldn't just turn around and come back in the middle of the trip. Lol - nobody really knew that stuff yet except for a few of us geeks.
The Artemis program was mired in so much negativity, doubt and skepiticism among experts and space enthusiasts, but my inclination was always to be optimistic about it. When Artemis I returned, it was a huge sigh of relief to me as well and I felt vindicated in my faith in NASA and its partners! Here's to the future missions going as smoothly. :)
I mean, NASA deserves the criticism and negativity. Especially considering how inefficient and results-scarce they have been compared to the private sector for the past few decades.
@@networknomad5600 What does this even actually mean? NASA (especially these last few years) have had several high profile missions that were successful and still ongoing.
@@networknomad5600 The problem isn't NASA, it's that they're a government organization, and so they're constantly fighting for every scrap of funding they can get. They have to constantly convince the US government that funding rockets purely for space exploration is actually worth it, and in many ways the only way they get that funding is by agreeing to some form of tie in to potential military development, and It's why the space shuttle was designed the way it was for example. The reason the private sector can be so successful is because they're for profit and their goal isn't simply the exploration of space, it's turning space exploration into a business. That grabs many investors attention and can create a massive pool of money for new development. Asking people to invest in something purely for the sake of discovery is an incredibly hard sell, because in reality you're simply just asking them to burn their money. When you throw dollar signs into the mix and say, "this investment can potentially make you billions of dollars," it becomes a hell of a lot more enticing.
Yea, why is that? Much of it was because of the insane cost, 2 billion. Seriously? No, it's about will. If our "representatives" have the will, they can give out 100 billion to a foreign entity in a matter of weeks with very little discussion or oversight. If they dont have the will, 1-2% of that over years is like pulling teeth. Reminds me of southern border security Americans have been begging for, for decades now. 8 billion would completely handle it. Or homelessness, very doable. There's no will to do it. So, I really don't want to hear about how much something costs anymore, the precedent has been set, and everything in comparison just seems ridiculous. Those incredible state of the art nuclear submarines? 1 billion. Total cost of the shuttle program, all 4 shuttles, fuel tank, boosters, wearhouse, crawler, infrastructure etc? 10 billion. Awe inspiring state of the art aircraft carriers? 3 billion. Is that expensive? Well yeah, it used to be, but it sure isnt anymore now that we have some perspective
Thanks so much, Fraser! I really appreciate this Overview episode; I was super enthusiastic about Artemis, but my work precluded my being able to follow the mission in detail. My kid and I saw Artemis on the launch pad last Spring, and it's thrilling to know it flew successfully.
I'm excited about the success of Artemis so far. I am now more excited about Exo Planet discoveries than I was a week ago. I am excited because of the recent announcement of the breakthrough with Nuclear Fusion. There is still a long way to go with Fusion but the recent success has given me hope the our planet may survive long enough now to give us the extended time our civilization has to develop the technology. One day fusion might be what enables us to visit another solar system and check out it's planets, moons, and the star itself.
The fusion accomplishment is really amazing. It won't turn into portable fusion plants tomorrow, but now we see a solid pathway forward to the future of this technology.
@@frasercain Thanks for responding Fraser. Sorry I was such a crybaby about a week ago. I's staying with you and your channel. Your too good at being informative to leave behind. ☮
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
We waited so long for James Webb Space Telescope and Artemis to launch it felt this would never happen. Suddenly JWST is working away in its special place in space, cranking out a new level detail in imaging and science. Artemis did it’s usual tease with launch attempts. Again, suddenly it was headed to the moon.
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
I have developed a very deep respect and admiration for NASA. I love their cautious approach to lauches and missions. Let's support this fabulous agency!!
I would like to say something. don't get me wrong - the rocket hardware is absolutely amazing. What they have built is awe inspiring, and a true testament to human genius and persistence. But I would like to give a huge shout out to the people responsible for what you don't see. The geeky people drip fed coffee and fed on Pizza. Yes thats the software developers. They miss out because people cant see what they do, but they also do an awesome job, and tend to be the first that get blamed if things go wrong. So a big congratulations to and thanks to the software people - you are all just as awesome as the rocket scientists!
I've been following Artemis since it's announcement, I'm so happy I'm finally seeing lunar exploration instead of just reading about it! I grew up in the Houston area, the space program has always meant a lot to me
I was about 14 yrs old when Apollo 17 went to the moon and i was blessed to be there. Only night launch in the program and to this day it still fills me with awe. Same for Artemis. With all of the troubles occuring, present and future, it is needed to focus on things that will benefit us all and keep moving towards a brighter future. Excellent episode!
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
I am so excited as I was born in 1972 and missed the first landings on the moon; My parents told me about this and all my childhood was filled with science and books on blackholes and space and I even won a prize for a speech I made about the discoveries of universe; Now I am in my 50's and I cannot wait to see it with my eyes. BUT I am sorry but... I feel soooo puzzled by the situation as years go by; When I took my son to the space museum in Washington, he told me: "Mom, it is a joke, this looks like a school project in middle school" speaking about the capsule. And then I started to question myself a lot. So now I cannot wait to prove him that yes, men walked on the moon in 1969... But I do not know anymore. And you know what? I think we are 30 pc to believe it did not happen and another 30 pc who do not dare to say they feel it never happened. And the other 30 pc are like me and wait for it to happen again...before they die...
It's been a Promethean week, hasn't it? It's as if we've discovered how to create and use fire, what with the nuclear fusion announcement. Couple that with Artemis and the successful launch of the Hakuto R mission, we have a lot to look forward to in the coming year!
Thanks Fraser for another awesome, informative video! 👍🏻🔭. I was born several weeks before Sputnik, was 12 when we first landed on the moon. I thought it was so cool that McDonalds gave moon map posters (with purchase) but I would have probably watched every moment of a “live camera” if it were available! ❤
I'm REALLY happy everything worked out for this mission! I'm really looking forward to the next steps! 😃 Thanks, Fraser! Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
They did it 50 years ago with slide rules and pencils, not sure why we are wasting money on a reboot. FUD the ocean of plastic in the Pacific. That would be impressive.
Thanks for recommending we come back and watch this video after your recent interview with Tom Jones (a superb, surprisingly emotional discussion that I deeply appreciated). Watching your breakdown of the first Artemis again further along in time had me celebrating even more than in real time. Such an enormous accomplishment and yet we're really just getting started. Gonna be some exciting and awesome times ahead, Fraser, no doubt about it! Thank you
It's really funny how Nasa (and news) kept saying "farthest human rated spacecraft" until during the landing they finally got the memo and added somthing like "that was planned to return to earth". Snoopy finally got the deserved respect.
I echo & amplify your closing sentiments! As a junior high student in the Md suburbs of DC, I was in the auditorium at school for a presentation by some NASA guys about the upcoming Mercury program, and the followup Gemini & Apollo missions. As these were fulfilled over the following decade-and-a-half, it was an exciting time for a young amateur astronomer. Then, after complete success, the whole thing just kinda fizzled. But now, the return to travel beyond near-Earth space is, after half a century, finally about to happen! So seeing this first Artemis mission finish successfully is a little surreal, after that 50-year pause. And once again, there's excitement in the air about what will come in the next decade. Fred
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
@@frasercain I'd like to think so, but I'm skeptical. Maintaining a lunar base would require a very long-term commitment that would be totally out of character for the level of public support there seems to be for such things.
Nice job with the video! I watched the Apollo 11 landing as an 11 year old and subsequently all the other landings even they were eventually shown in the middle of the night. (There were no means to record back then) I hope I live to see the return of moon walks.
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
I honestly don’t remember seeing ANYTHING about this on the news media. It was a great big hole that the networks just didn’t see. The only place I have heard anything about this is from TH-camrs like you.
Artemis I lept off the pad because the second and upper stages are under-powered, interim solutions. The SLS booster is simply designed to loft a lot more payload than Artemis I had to send. And because these other components were underpowered, there wasn't a lot more it would have been capable of doing as it stands today - at least if it actually had occupants, life support and other essential equipment.
you missed one important detail. the Artemis I mission carried our names with it, or at least those who signed up to "board" the spacecraft. Free of charge of course since we all missed the flight. :P
You did a great job of putting this *(the reporting of this) together... I have criticized you before and apologized afterwards, so, know that I actually am telling you exactly how I feel you are doing at not only paying attention to what is going on but your ability to relay that info to the rest of us. I appreciate your commitment to doing exactly that. and your talent in doing so.. thanks!
sure not everything went well with Artemis 1/The Orion Mission, but who cares, we still got to see something amazing happen, it also means that there is room for improvement, and maybe by the time Artemis 2 launches, we may have a system that works even better. On top of that, I cannot wait for the Artemis 3 mission, it will be a very exciting time, I am hoping to get a lot of money together to travel to the USA in order to see the launch of the moon mission myself, I want to hear those smexy engines roar to life in person.
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
It makes me so nervous that we'll be slingshotting astronauts to the moon again, but also very hopeful. I'm excited for more moon exploration and maybe even higher quality footage.
I know it’s a way off still but I absolutely cannot wait for Artemis 3 I unfortunately never got to see the absolutely historic Apollo 11 moon landing as I was not alive during that time and I want nothing more than to see man on the moon in person this time I get that this one may not be as historic as the first time but I really want to see it since I’ve grown up mostly in the anti space age I guess
Nice overview! Regarding the re-entry of Orion : was the re-entry profile anything like those of the Apollo CMs? I know that those missions used the lift of the capsule to increase altitude (and thus decrease heating) for a short time during re-entry. Was this similar to the Orion capsule "bouncing off" the atmosphere for a while, or does Orion go to much higher altitudes during this phase of re-entry, or something else?
I see a few people today as excited as we were back in the 60's and 70's, but most people don't know about it or care, so sad. I was in the Pacific coming back from Southeast Asia, when Apollo 11 landed, the entire world was excited, a girl I knew in Japan wrote about how wonderful it was that the two of us thousands of miles apart could look at the same Moon that men were walking on. I wonder how people will see it when we go to Mars?
Unrelated question! Hey Fraser.. I noticed in your recent article about the Oort Cloud that on a logarithmic scale that the planets are fairly evenly distributed and my intuition even suggested the small variances might be down to the mass of the planets. For example, might the larger gap between Mars and Jupiter be due to jupiters proportionally much larger mass (and possibly the additional small amount of mass made up by the asteroid belt..) My question is; is this even distribution based on mass a natural product of orbital dynamics during the formation of the solar system and if so is it demonstrated elsewhere in other exo-systems?..
This is known as the Titus-Bode law, and it claims to predict the locations of planets. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius%E2%80%93Bode_law But we still haven't got good enough observation of exoplanetary systems to confirm it beyond the Solar System.
I heard decades ago that the mass of asteroids in the asteroid belt would add up to form a planet roughly the size of Mars. However, seeing I read that 20-30 years ago, astronomers may have adjusted their measurements.
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
I'm not convinced that giant flash Gordon looking thing will be used as a lander I just think they need a proper lander ultimately I can imagine it being a different set of of requirements down the road for a lander something less cumbersome
Can you answer why they don't "mount" a geostationary satelile covering the backside of the moon, in plain sight from earth, so they could relay radio signals from nasa spacecrafts when on the backside? I dont know if there is a reason for not doing it, or other things?
The Chinese did this when they had a mission land at the lunar south pole. The Earth-Moon L2 Lagrange point is relatively stable and the perfect place to send a mission to work as a relay. There'll be something there when Artemis 3 gets to the Moon.
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
Rockets launch through light rain pretty often. The big issue is hail and lightning. Heat is not an issue for take off. It’s only an issue for high speed reentry. Good question!
politics and world views should not be allowed to remove or stop humanities progression . its the biggest crime and its wrong for a government to limit humanity's growth . nasa should get 300billion per year and more then that
Great explainer/update video - thanks! I’m sure the space geek community is avidly following the progress of Artemis, but how aware is the general public? My feeling is that it’s nowhere near as widely publicised or known about as the 1960s space race. Have you got any facts and figures on this?
What feels surreal to me is how this generation is happily patting themselves on the back for doing something that was done almost seventy years ago by both the USSR and the USA, and using 1950s technology. Way to go...Super Impressive
To be more specific, the $4 billion cost is by the OIG's own admission somewhat inaccurate. That is the cost of the entire NASA launch facility upkeep + all the involved NASA facilities + Airbus's facilities + ESA (that NASA doesn't pay for) + development cost of the rocket + 4 SLS rockets. All divided by the first 4 development launches. Essentially this is including a lot of costs that are not part of the SLS or even paid for by NASA. Each rocket itself doesn't cost $4 billion. The incidental cost to build and fly one is about $8-900 million which is still a LOT but its been somewhat blown out of proportion in order to make the program look worse than it is. Its actually around the inflation-adjusted cost of a Titan IV construction+launch in the 1990s. The original plan was actually to do the Artemis mission plan, but missions 3, 4, 5, 6 would be building up the Gateway first. Since it was assumed lander development would take a while on the flat budget, the landing was targeted at 2028. The Trump admin named the program but demanded a landing in 2024 before the president's second term. (Originally they asked NASA to fly Artemis 1 with crew) Congress ignored this request and continued to fund to the "2028 Landing" profile which is ironically where the landing is slipping to.
We all know that the show For All Mankind shows we fell short and lost faith in the moon too soon. If we had stayed we would have discovered water for colonization and rocket fuel, helium 3 for efficient fusion reactions for unlimited clean energy, and a bunch of other rare earth metals that would have cover the cost of all future missions. Other than Apollo 13 this should be considered NASA’s biggest blunder.
Question Fraser - apart from like, "Safety first"; is there a technical reason why humans couldn't have been on Artemis 1? I totally get why you wouldn't want to risk lives needlessly. Just want to know if there's something we know right now that guarantees jeopardy.
With just one launch a year, will the Artemis program survive? I mean a year is a long time to wait for another launch. Or will they eventually schedule flights more frequently in the future. I don't see the Artemis thing surviving if its just one launch a year.
It's surprising there are no satellites already in orbit around the moon to relay communications from the spacecraft when it's on the dark side. Seems like something like that would be a given.
Chinese put one to communicate with their lunar lander that landed on the far side of the moon , but if you don't have anything on the far side of the moon, why do you need a satellite for that?
There aren't any right now, but there will be when the next robotic missions to the Moon. If you position a spacecraft at the Earth-Moon L2 lagrange point you can relay communications back to Earth.
There are so many space projects going on at the same time, by multiple countries. That, combined with the constant cancellation of major projects in NASA from the administration, distracts me. This one, which is a major one, slipped under my radar. Thanks for the in-depth coverage of it.
When I was a little boy we got so excited of the moon landing. but my family got sick of watching the moon landings. I think part of it was the super crappie resolution. I found out years later one of them at Nasa was pointing the TV camera at the monitor instead of sending them as come in from the moon.
I am curious about the significant possible dangers to landing near the poles that were not present during the Apollo missions. Specifically due to solar winds creating electrical difference in charge that could be deadly. I have not heard this mentioned much when the Artemis mission's future is discussed.
@@cjay2 Money. Apollo had a virtually limitless budget in comparison to the drip-fed piecemeal funding of Artemis by Congress. Also, following the cancellation of Apollo the impetus for the next three decades turned to low earth orbit with the Space Shuttle Programme and the construction of the ISS. Moreover, although many of the component technologies of Artemis can be traced back to 2005 with Constellation, the Artemis programme was only formally established in 2017.
@@senecaaurelius1811 Seriously - how many times? Top scientist? What on earth are you talking about? Don Pettit was a former astronaut. You can't eve parrot that correctly. No technology was "destroyed" in the literal sense. Here is the *_full_* quote from 2004. which you neglect to mention. "I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again. But going to Mars should be one of the next series of steps that humans do." Since the cancellation of Apollo, the emphasis was placed upon low earth orbit (through the development of the space shuttle and the construction of the ISS) and duration of missions. NASA has yielded huge amounts of data from this as the focus turns again to manned space exploration. Also, with the ending of Apollo, the technology, tooling, production processes and plants were all closed and the expertise that hand built many of these components retired. Boeing, who manufactured the Saturn SI-C have spent years reconfiguring and upgrading their old facility for the production of the SLS core stage. As the old technology of Apollo is now obsolete it has been superseded by modern composites, materials, manufacturing techniques and systems that all have to be validated. This has taken years and in comparison to the virtually limitless budget of Apollo, the funding from congress have been drip fed. In other words, 'rebuilding' - which has been a 'painful' and protracted process. Again. to remind you, Pettit's quote is almost two decades old. Prior to Constellation and Project Artemis - the latter being only officially approved in 2017.
FRAME DRAGGING - space-time swirling around black holes, instead of snapping back? Does this say anything fundamental about space-time, for we lay people, as an oversimplified fluid instead of oversimplified "fabric" analogy?
@@frasercain Thanks! Yeah, I can understand that it isn't a trampoline or a whirlpool, if waves and particles can break my brain. Haha . Love your show! Challenge us! We love to watch an episode twice! :)
only 0.1 mm aluminum foil for all radiation and changed particle in universe shield ( remember this ) and look for radiation shield spec for artemis 2 and 3
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
The thin aluminum sheets on the LM were not there to stop ionizing radiation. It was there to keep the sunlight off of the cryogenic tanks which it did perfectly well.
While it’s amazing to BE going back to the moon and I and will cheer on every single person who launches, I still feel that this money would have been much better spent on other missions. So much amazing science could be done for the billions being spent here which will bring back relatively little. Think of how many probes to the planets could be launched for all of this! I don’t feel the moon is any longer the kind of aspirational awe inspiring target it once was. One could argue it’s a stepping stone to mars and in that I would support this. But it doesn’t feel like SLS is being designed for that as a long term target. Still the bigger issue is NASAs limited budget vs say the military. If it didn’t have to compete with other science goals for such a small slice of the pie.
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
It's great that we are going back. I think science and technology should get more spent on it rather than on waste like beer , cigarettes and take out pizza.
The moon is an excellent place to establish bases for a launch to other bodies in the solar system. Also, blast damage from the launch trashed the mobile launcher (Musk's rocket did also) so the mobile launcher problems will have to be worked out.
I read that SpaceX will use their "Starship" as the lander for the Lunar mission. If this is true, then why would we need Orion capsule or the SLS rockets?
"If this is true, then why would we need Orion capsule or the SLS rockets?" Two reasons: 1. Starship is currently still only an empty shell that has not even been to orbit yet. 2. Starship is a 50 meter tall vehicle that has the access-hatch at 33 meters above the ground, has all it;s mass in at the top, landing on uneven ground that is just loose regulith. it is possibly the worst design you can come up with to land on the moon.
@@vinny142 NASA may have made a mistake in choosing Space X for the lander contract. Space business is extremely risky unless one gets a cost-plus contract. I wonder why NASA gave up on designing their own lander system?
I was 6 and remember Apollo11 as well as most of the rest.. teachers rolled out TV for 4 years. It was awesome.
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
I remember explaining to the adults why Apollo 13 couldn't just turn around and come back in the middle of the trip. Lol - nobody really knew that stuff yet except for a few of us geeks.
@@timefactortheoryofgravitya7578 this gave me a stroke trying to read this
@@phil20_20I always thought this stuff was basic knowledge but people never fail to surprise me lol
@@timefactortheoryofgravitya7578wdym in travveled into the future?
The Artemis program was mired in so much negativity, doubt and skepiticism among experts and space enthusiasts, but my inclination was always to be optimistic about it. When Artemis I returned, it was a huge sigh of relief to me as well and I felt vindicated in my faith in NASA and its partners! Here's to the future missions going as smoothly. :)
alot of the trouble and even design decisions came from politics that NAsa had little influence over.
I mean, NASA deserves the criticism and negativity. Especially considering how inefficient and results-scarce they have been compared to the private sector for the past few decades.
@@networknomad5600 What does this even actually mean? NASA (especially these last few years) have had several high profile missions that were successful and still ongoing.
@@networknomad5600 The problem isn't NASA, it's that they're a government organization, and so they're constantly fighting for every scrap of funding they can get. They have to constantly convince the US government that funding rockets purely for space exploration is actually worth it, and in many ways the only way they get that funding is by agreeing to some form of tie in to potential military development, and It's why the space shuttle was designed the way it was for example. The reason the private sector can be so successful is because they're for profit and their goal isn't simply the exploration of space, it's turning space exploration into a business. That grabs many investors attention and can create a massive pool of money for new development. Asking people to invest in something purely for the sake of discovery is an incredibly hard sell, because in reality you're simply just asking them to burn their money. When you throw dollar signs into the mix and say, "this investment can potentially make you billions of dollars," it becomes a hell of a lot more enticing.
Yea, why is that? Much of it was because of the insane cost, 2 billion. Seriously? No, it's about will. If our "representatives" have the will, they can give out 100 billion to a foreign entity in a matter of weeks with very little discussion or oversight. If they dont have the will, 1-2% of that over years is like pulling teeth. Reminds me of southern border security Americans have been begging for, for decades now. 8 billion would completely handle it. Or homelessness, very doable. There's no will to do it. So, I really don't want to hear about how much something costs anymore, the precedent has been set, and everything in comparison just seems ridiculous. Those incredible state of the art nuclear submarines? 1 billion. Total cost of the shuttle program, all 4 shuttles, fuel tank, boosters, wearhouse, crawler, infrastructure etc? 10 billion. Awe inspiring state of the art aircraft carriers? 3 billion. Is that expensive? Well yeah, it used to be, but it sure isnt anymore now that we have some perspective
Thanks so much, Fraser! I really appreciate this Overview episode; I was super enthusiastic about Artemis, but my work precluded my being able to follow the mission in detail. My kid and I saw Artemis on the launch pad last Spring, and it's thrilling to know it flew successfully.
I'm excited about the success of Artemis so far. I am now more excited about Exo Planet discoveries than I was a week ago. I am excited because of the recent announcement of the breakthrough with Nuclear Fusion. There is still a long way to go with Fusion but the recent success has given me hope the our planet may survive long enough now to give us the extended time our civilization has to develop the technology. One day fusion might be what enables us to visit another solar system and check out it's planets, moons, and the star itself.
The fusion accomplishment is really amazing. It won't turn into portable fusion plants tomorrow, but now we see a solid pathway forward to the future of this technology.
@@frasercain Thanks for responding Fraser. Sorry I was such a crybaby about a week ago. I's staying with you and your channel. Your too good at being informative to leave behind. ☮
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
@@timefactortheoryofgravitya7578 What I wanna know is how the heck did they fit a time machine into that little Artemis capsule???
@@timefactortheoryofgravitya7578 no
We waited so long for James Webb Space Telescope and Artemis to launch it felt this would never happen. Suddenly JWST is working away in its special place in space, cranking out a new level detail in imaging and science. Artemis did it’s usual tease with launch attempts. Again, suddenly it was headed to the moon.
We get so many delays that it's always a surprise when it actually flies.
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
I have developed a very deep respect and admiration for NASA. I love their cautious approach to lauches and missions. Let's support this fabulous agency!!
Thanks!
I would like to say something. don't get me wrong - the rocket hardware is absolutely amazing. What they have built is awe inspiring, and a true testament to human genius and persistence. But I would like to give a huge shout out to the people responsible for what you don't see. The geeky people drip fed coffee and fed on Pizza. Yes thats the software developers. They miss out because people cant see what they do, but they also do an awesome job, and tend to be the first that get blamed if things go wrong. So a big congratulations to and thanks to the software people - you are all just as awesome as the rocket scientists!
I've been following Artemis since it's announcement, I'm so happy I'm finally seeing lunar exploration instead of just reading about it! I grew up in the Houston area, the space program has always meant a lot to me
*its
I was about 14 yrs old when Apollo 17 went to the moon and i was blessed to be there. Only night launch in the program and to this day it still fills me with awe. Same for Artemis. With all of the troubles occuring, present and future, it is needed to focus on things that will benefit us all and keep moving towards a brighter future. Excellent episode!
It'll be amazing to see people on the surface of the Moon again.
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
I am so excited as I was born in 1972 and missed the first landings on the moon; My parents told me about this and all my childhood was filled with science and books on blackholes and space and I even won a prize for a speech I made about the discoveries of universe; Now I am in my 50's and I cannot wait to see it with my eyes. BUT I am sorry but... I feel soooo puzzled by the situation as years go by; When I took my son to the space museum in Washington, he told me: "Mom, it is a joke, this looks like a school project in middle school" speaking about the capsule. And then I started to question myself a lot. So now I cannot wait to prove him that yes, men walked on the moon in 1969... But I do not know anymore. And you know what? I think we are 30 pc to believe it did not happen and another 30 pc who do not dare to say they feel it never happened. And the other 30 pc are like me and wait for it to happen again...before they die...
It's been a Promethean week, hasn't it? It's as if we've discovered how to create and use fire, what with the nuclear fusion announcement. Couple that with Artemis and the successful launch of the Hakuto R mission, we have a lot to look forward to in the coming year!
Thanks Fraser for another awesome, informative video! 👍🏻🔭. I was born several weeks before Sputnik, was 12 when we first landed on the moon. I thought it was so cool that McDonalds gave moon map posters (with purchase) but I would have probably watched every moment of a “live camera” if it were available! ❤
That is so funny because it's still not available it's CGI mean this computer graphic
I'm REALLY happy everything worked out for this mission! I'm really looking forward to the next steps! 😃
Thanks, Fraser!
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
They did it 50 years ago with slide rules and pencils, not sure why we are wasting money on a reboot. FUD the ocean of plastic in the Pacific. That would be impressive.
Thanks for recommending we come back and watch this video after your recent interview with Tom Jones (a superb, surprisingly emotional discussion that I deeply appreciated).
Watching your breakdown of the first Artemis again further along in time had me celebrating even more than in real time. Such an enormous accomplishment and yet we're really just getting started. Gonna be some exciting and awesome times ahead, Fraser, no doubt about it! Thank you
Thank you Fraser, this was an excellent review of the Project. Great content, as usual.
It's really funny how Nasa (and news) kept saying "farthest human rated spacecraft" until during the landing they finally got the memo and added somthing like "that was planned to return to earth".
Snoopy finally got the deserved respect.
all i can do is like and comment to help the algorithm to promote this most excellent channel.
I echo & amplify your closing sentiments! As a junior high student in the Md suburbs of DC, I was in the auditorium at school for a presentation by some NASA guys about the upcoming Mercury program, and the followup Gemini & Apollo missions.
As these were fulfilled over the following decade-and-a-half, it was an exciting time for a young amateur astronomer.
Then, after complete success, the whole thing just kinda fizzled. But now, the return to travel beyond near-Earth space is, after half a century, finally about to happen!
So seeing this first Artemis mission finish successfully is a little surreal, after that 50-year pause.
And once again, there's excitement in the air about what will come in the next decade.
Fred
It's exciting to see the missions happening again, and this time I really think we're going to stay.
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
@@frasercain I'd like to think so, but I'm skeptical. Maintaining a lunar base would require a very long-term commitment that would be totally out of character for the level of public support there seems to be for such things.
Nice job with the video! I watched the Apollo 11 landing as an 11 year old and subsequently all the other landings even they were eventually shown in the middle of the night. (There were no means to record back then) I hope I live to see the return of moon walks.
Thanks a lot, I'm glad you enjoyed it. Just a few more years now...
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
When those solid boosters light, the vehicle is GONNA GO!
I honestly don’t remember seeing ANYTHING about this on the news media. It was a great big hole that the networks just didn’t see. The only place I have heard anything about this is from TH-camrs like you.
Artemis I lept off the pad because the second and upper stages are under-powered, interim solutions. The SLS booster is simply designed to loft a lot more payload than Artemis I had to send.
And because these other components were underpowered, there wasn't a lot more it would have been capable of doing as it stands today - at least if it actually had occupants, life support and other essential equipment.
Mr. Cain, your enthusiasm is contagious! Well done video.
ANOTHER outstanding piece of work - well done!
Many thanks!
you missed one important detail.
the Artemis I mission carried our names with it, or at least those who signed up to "board" the spacecraft. Free of charge of course since we all missed the flight. :P
Very clear and interesting- I remember the Apollo landings v well 🌟
Can't wait for Artemis 3! I wasn't alive when they landed humans on the moon last time.
I was 9, and I still remember watching the entire mission in the summer of 1969 on a 19" black and white television.
@@squatch545 Nice! Maybe we will both live to see people on Mars?
Thanks for this! I always enjoy your longer feature videos.
You did a great job of putting this *(the reporting of this) together... I have criticized you before and apologized afterwards, so, know that I actually am telling you exactly how I feel you are doing at not only paying attention to what is going on but your ability to relay that info to the rest of us. I appreciate your commitment to doing exactly that. and your talent in doing so.. thanks!
sure not everything went well with Artemis 1/The Orion Mission, but who cares, we still got to see something amazing happen, it also means that there is room for improvement, and maybe by the time Artemis 2 launches, we may have a system that works even better.
On top of that, I cannot wait for the Artemis 3 mission, it will be a very exciting time, I am hoping to get a lot of money together to travel to the USA in order to see the launch of the moon mission myself, I want to hear those smexy engines roar to life in person.
Brilliant video .. Watched every second.
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
It makes me so nervous that we'll be slingshotting astronauts to the moon again, but also very hopeful. I'm excited for more moon exploration and maybe even higher quality footage.
exciting times again :) cool video
I can't wait for the next one
Wow! What an excellent reporting. Thank you!
I know it’s a way off still but I absolutely cannot wait for Artemis 3 I unfortunately never got to see the absolutely historic Apollo 11 moon landing as I was not alive during that time and I want nothing more than to see man on the moon in person this time I get that this one may not be as historic as the first time but I really want to see it since I’ve grown up mostly in the anti space age I guess
Congratulations on successful mission! I highly appreciate the presentation by Fraser.
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Nice overview!
Regarding the re-entry of Orion : was the re-entry profile anything like those of the Apollo CMs? I know that those missions used the lift of the capsule to increase altitude (and thus decrease heating) for a short time during re-entry. Was this similar to the Orion capsule "bouncing off" the atmosphere for a while, or does Orion go to much higher altitudes during this phase of re-entry, or something else?
Thank you for this good article on Artemis.
Great overview Fraser, Great job team.
Thanks a lot, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Great video! ❤
Thanks!
You’re the man
Thanks!
This was beautiful
I´m so excited to see people going back to the Moon during my lifetime, and hopefully get some Gopro footage from the surface.
I see a few people today as excited as we were back in the 60's and 70's, but most people don't know about it or care, so sad. I was in the Pacific coming back from Southeast Asia, when Apollo 11 landed, the entire world was excited, a girl I knew in Japan wrote about how wonderful it was that the two of us thousands of miles apart could look at the same Moon that men were walking on. I wonder how people will see it when we go to Mars?
I'm sure it'll be like that again when humans first set foot on Mars.
@@frasercain I hope so. Very good quality videos sir, keep up the good work and you will get the millions of subscribers you deserve.
Endless curiosity of humans
Unrelated question!
Hey Fraser.. I noticed in your recent article about the Oort Cloud that on a logarithmic scale that the planets are fairly evenly distributed and my intuition even suggested the small variances might be down to the mass of the planets. For example, might the larger gap between Mars and Jupiter be due to jupiters proportionally much larger mass (and possibly the additional small amount of mass made up by the asteroid belt..)
My question is; is this even distribution based on mass a natural product of orbital dynamics during the formation of the solar system and if so is it demonstrated elsewhere in other exo-systems?..
This is known as the Titus-Bode law, and it claims to predict the locations of planets.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius%E2%80%93Bode_law
But we still haven't got good enough observation of exoplanetary systems to confirm it beyond the Solar System.
I heard decades ago that the mass of asteroids in the asteroid belt would add up to form a planet roughly the size of Mars. However, seeing I read that 20-30 years ago, astronomers may have adjusted their measurements.
Yeah, it's a fraction of the mass of the Moon. It would make a very tiny object.
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
I'm not convinced that giant flash Gordon looking thing will be used as a lander I just think they need a proper lander ultimately I can imagine it being a different set of of requirements down the road for a lander something less cumbersome
Can you answer why they don't "mount" a geostationary satelile covering the backside of the moon, in plain sight from earth, so they could relay radio signals from nasa spacecrafts when on the backside? I dont know if there is a reason for not doing it, or other things?
The Chinese did this when they had a mission land at the lunar south pole. The Earth-Moon L2 Lagrange point is relatively stable and the perfect place to send a mission to work as a relay. There'll be something there when Artemis 3 gets to the Moon.
@@frasercain Thanks for your good answer ;-)
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
If you launch when it's raining, does it help keep everything slightly cooler?
Oh interesting, I wonder what launch engineers do to take that into account?
Rockets launch through light rain pretty often. The big issue is hail and lightning. Heat is not an issue for take off. It’s only an issue for high speed reentry. Good question!
politics and world views should not be allowed to remove or stop humanities progression . its the biggest crime and its wrong for a government to limit humanity's growth . nasa should get 300billion per year and more then that
Great explainer/update video - thanks! I’m sure the space geek community is avidly following the progress of Artemis, but how aware is the general public? My feeling is that it’s nowhere near as widely publicised or known about as the 1960s space race. Have you got any facts and figures on this?
I think people are generally aware that NASA just sent a spacecraft to the Moon, but maybe not...
What feels surreal to me is how this generation is happily patting themselves on the back for doing something that was done almost seventy years ago by both the USSR and the USA, and using 1950s technology. Way to go...Super Impressive
Very nice. Thank you
Great video
Bravo!!
did my man really say "new technologies need to be developed to go back to the moon"
Yes. The Apollo program was extremely dangerous and
overfunded. new technology makes these missions safer and cheaper.
Yes, because the 69 moon landings were faked!
@@jamilhussain5421 there well less then 10.
@Jamil Hussain oh yeah I forgot
To be more specific, the $4 billion cost is by the OIG's own admission somewhat inaccurate. That is the cost of the entire NASA launch facility upkeep + all the involved NASA facilities + Airbus's facilities + ESA (that NASA doesn't pay for) + development cost of the rocket + 4 SLS rockets. All divided by the first 4 development launches. Essentially this is including a lot of costs that are not part of the SLS or even paid for by NASA.
Each rocket itself doesn't cost $4 billion. The incidental cost to build and fly one is about $8-900 million which is still a LOT but its been somewhat blown out of proportion in order to make the program look worse than it is. Its actually around the inflation-adjusted cost of a Titan IV construction+launch in the 1990s.
The original plan was actually to do the Artemis mission plan, but missions 3, 4, 5, 6 would be building up the Gateway first. Since it was assumed lander development would take a while on the flat budget, the landing was targeted at 2028. The Trump admin named the program but demanded a landing in 2024 before the president's second term. (Originally they asked NASA to fly Artemis 1 with crew) Congress ignored this request and continued to fund to the "2028 Landing" profile which is ironically where the landing is slipping to.
Yeah, the actual cost per flight will depend on how many flights they do and amortize it over the long run.
Thanks for sharing, a great mission which was worth waiting for ✊🌛🌐🚀🗽🇺🇸👍❤️👍
Good video, like always 👍
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Are those failed cube sats a hazzard to future manned missions
No, space is really big. :-)
it was good summary of the missions. I with Artemis 2 was much closer
Yeah, like I said, 2024 can't come soon enough.
Good speech
We all know that the show For All Mankind shows we fell short and lost faith in the moon too soon. If we had stayed we would have discovered water for colonization and rocket fuel, helium 3 for efficient fusion reactions for unlimited clean energy, and a bunch of other rare earth metals that would have cover the cost of all future missions. Other than Apollo 13 this should be considered NASA’s biggest blunder.
8:03 I'm not a flat earther or space-flight denier but why does the moon look like a really bad CGI?
It does but that is because, with a pure black background, it is easy to see every hill and crevice in the horizon, and it is moving fast.
Hi Fraser, what are exciting missions expected to happen in 2023? Thanks
Question Fraser - apart from like, "Safety first"; is there a technical reason why humans couldn't have been on Artemis 1? I totally get why you wouldn't want to risk lives needlessly. Just want to know if there's something we know right now that guarantees jeopardy.
I should have watched the whole video before posting 😂
@@simba9825 Then erase your comment. You can do that you know.
Just that it's a totally new, untested rocket. Sounds dangerous.
At about 10:06 on the video there are 2 close-up shots of the lunar surface - WHY ARE THE SHADOWS CHANGING!!?
That video clip was artist's illustration.
So they're going for direct ascent? I thought they'd stick with LOR.
People are ready for the next step! Space X must work harder than ever!
With just one launch a year, will the Artemis program survive? I mean a year is a long time to wait for another launch. Or will they eventually schedule flights more frequently in the future. I don't see the Artemis thing surviving if its just one launch a year.
Why wouldn't it "survive"? It's been budgeted for at least six launches already.
@@rikk319 Because the public will get bored with it
It's even worse in reality, Artemis 2 nearly sure won't launch before 2025...
It's surprising there are no satellites already in orbit around the moon to relay communications from the spacecraft when it's on the dark side. Seems like something like that would be a given.
Chinese put one to communicate with their lunar lander that landed on the far side of the moon , but if you don't have anything on the far side of the moon, why do you need a satellite for that?
There aren't any right now, but there will be when the next robotic missions to the Moon. If you position a spacecraft at the Earth-Moon L2 lagrange point you can relay communications back to Earth.
I think you mean “far side”. Every spot on the Moon is on the “dark side” for half of every lunar month.
Did Tom Hanks survive?
You forget to mention Spacelab -- prior to the shuttle and the ISS!
I’m late but it was called skylab
There are so many space projects going on at the same time, by multiple countries. That, combined with the constant cancellation of major projects in NASA from the administration, distracts me. This one, which is a major one, slipped under my radar. Thanks for the in-depth coverage of it.
Wow, I'm impressed that Artemis I slipped past you. You must be busy. :-)
When I was a little boy we got so excited of the moon landing. but my family got sick of watching the moon landings. I think part of it was the super crappie resolution. I found out years later one of them at Nasa was pointing the TV camera at the monitor instead of sending them as come in from the moon.
6:11 that bird is the most nonchalant creature on earth.
It would have been a lot better if you used Miles along with kilometres.
no sir
Multiply kms by 0.6 x to get miles. I’m sure you can do that.
Could we place a few satellites around the moon to eliminate the out of touch time?
Sure, there are plans to put a network of satellites around the Moon so we don't lose contact.
I am curious about the significant possible dangers to landing near the poles that were not present during the Apollo missions. Specifically due to solar winds creating electrical difference in charge that could be deadly. I have not heard this mentioned much when the Artemis mission's future is discussed.
You got that from the angry astronaut.. Be aware that "content creators" for youtube bucks, create content.
At the cost that Artemis program is, this will be the firs and last successful launch.
I want to go to the moon.
I'll let you know when they're looking for volunteers.
I hope they have a back up ready to replace “Starship.” I’d bet a lot of money that it will fail.
Maybe rich people will one day be able to be moon tourists in my lifetime.
There's a mission going to the Moon in a few years sponsored by a rich Japanese businessperson in a few years.
It would be so cool to be the first person to take a drink of moon water 💧 🌙 🌚
That would be amazing. I wonder what it would taste like?
@@frasercain we will never know, unfortunately.
has any one add bugs on the moon
Well, that only took 50 years...
Yeah, and it only took 8 years in 1969. Funny about that.
@@cjay2 Money. Apollo had a virtually limitless budget in comparison to the drip-fed piecemeal funding of Artemis by Congress. Also, following the cancellation of Apollo the impetus for the next three decades turned to low earth orbit with the Space Shuttle Programme and the construction of the ISS. Moreover, although many of the component technologies of Artemis can be traced back to 2005 with Constellation, the Artemis programme was only formally established in 2017.
It’s because we “destroyed“ the technology, and it was to “painful“ to build again. That’s according to top “scientist” Don Petit.
@@senecaaurelius1811
Seriously - how many times? Top scientist? What on earth are you talking about? Don Pettit was a former astronaut. You can't eve parrot that correctly.
No technology was "destroyed" in the literal sense. Here is the *_full_* quote from 2004. which you neglect to mention.
"I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again. But going to Mars should be one of the next series of steps that humans do."
Since the cancellation of Apollo, the emphasis was placed upon low earth orbit (through the development of the space shuttle and the construction of the ISS) and duration of missions. NASA has yielded huge amounts of data from this as the focus turns again to manned space exploration. Also, with the ending of Apollo, the technology, tooling, production processes and plants were all closed and the expertise that hand built many of these components retired. Boeing, who manufactured the Saturn SI-C have spent years reconfiguring and upgrading their old facility for the production of the SLS core stage. As the old technology of Apollo is now obsolete it has been superseded by modern composites, materials, manufacturing techniques and systems that all have to be validated. This has taken years and in comparison to the virtually limitless budget of Apollo, the funding from congress have been drip fed. In other words, 'rebuilding' - which has been a 'painful' and protracted process. Again. to remind you, Pettit's quote is almost two decades old. Prior to Constellation and Project Artemis - the latter being only officially approved in 2017.
@@yassassin6425 you ended up giving the quote I referenced and then blathered on, but TL;DR. Sorry.
We're back to 1968, and Apollo 10
FRAME DRAGGING - space-time swirling around black holes, instead of snapping back? Does this say anything fundamental about space-time, for we lay people, as an oversimplified fluid instead of oversimplified "fabric" analogy?
Astrophysicists describe this in math, so it's tough to come up with analogies for lay people that isn't inaccurate to some degree.
@@frasercain Thanks! Yeah, I can understand that it isn't a trampoline or a whirlpool, if waves and particles can break my brain. Haha . Love your show! Challenge us! We love to watch an episode twice! :)
only 0.1 mm aluminum foil for all radiation and changed particle in universe shield ( remember this ) and look for radiation shield spec for artemis 2 and 3
We'll find out once they've analyzed all the dosimeters that Orion was carrying.
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
The thin aluminum sheets on the LM were not there to stop ionizing radiation. It was there to keep the sunlight off of the cryogenic tanks which it did perfectly well.
While it’s amazing to BE going back to the moon and I and will cheer on every single person who launches, I still feel that this money would have been much better spent on other missions. So much amazing science could be done for the billions being spent here which will bring back relatively little. Think of how many probes to the planets could be launched for all of this! I don’t feel the moon is any longer the kind of aspirational awe inspiring target it once was. One could argue it’s a stepping stone to mars and in that I would support this. But it doesn’t feel like SLS is being designed for that as a long term target. Still the bigger issue is NASAs limited budget vs say the military. If it didn’t have to compete with other science goals for such a small slice of the pie.
Yeah, there could definitely be cheaper ways to accomplish the same goals. But for this, I'm just celebrating the work of the engineers.
Artemis travelled 3 into the future to get to the moon, then 3 years back in time to return to Earth. Click the big T to the left for Time Factor Theory. Real life "Back to the Future" proven by simple General Relativity math with a $5K challenge!
We need a large gray hound bus sized rv on the moon sooner than later
That would be cool.
Exiting time to be alive.
So we are finally going back to the moon to show the aliens who's boss? :P
is there any close up pics of backside
It's great that we are going back. I think science and technology should get more spent on it rather than on waste like beer , cigarettes and take out pizza.
Hah, yeah. :-)
The moon is an excellent place to establish bases for a launch to other bodies in the solar system. Also, blast damage from the launch trashed the mobile launcher (Musk's rocket did also) so the mobile launcher problems will have to be worked out.
Where the like button
I read that SpaceX will use their "Starship" as the lander for the Lunar mission. If this is true, then why would we need Orion capsule or the SLS rockets?
We need them to funnel billions of dollars to the senators' constituencies, of course.
"If this is true, then why would we need Orion capsule or the SLS rockets?"
Two reasons:
1. Starship is currently still only an empty shell that has not even been to orbit yet.
2. Starship is a 50 meter tall vehicle that has the access-hatch at 33 meters above the ground, has all it;s mass in at the top, landing on uneven ground that is just loose regulith. it is possibly the worst design you can come up with to land on the moon.
@@ewetoob1924 "We need them to funnel billions of dollars to the senators' constituencies, of course."
SpaceX is allmost entirely funded by NASA.
@@vinny142 What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
@@vinny142 NASA may have made a mistake in choosing Space X for the lander contract. Space business is extremely risky unless one gets a cost-plus contract. I wonder why NASA gave up on designing their own lander system?
There is a new space-race now.
NASA needs to beat Space-X .... even if it costs ten times as much to do far less.
It was all good except for the announcer at liftoff 🤦♂️