Me too my dear friends ❤

Were you and your gran tuning it yesterday? If not, then you have another chance

@86 i don't think she will have this joy from Americans 💩 but Chinese probably 😁

I honestly hope you do get to watch it with your grandma 🙂

I hope you watch the next launch and then it blows up in mid air and all the sreams of the burning astronauts never let you sleep peacefully again.

There are 22 internal and external cameras onboard Orion and ESM.

@@FrankyPi Yet those cameras are all probably going to cut out at inconvenient times, or the video footage will be covered up by some useless view of people cheering at annoying times. I just want them to point one camera towards Earth so we can see the Earth shrink as the craft flies away from it. But apparently this is too much to ask. Instead, we will see the craft near low-earth orbit, then the screens will be obscured somehow, then the stream will return to the spacecraft video as it is far far away from Earth.

@@justinmadrid8712 Ah so you're one of *_those_* people. They will be doing streaming and recording, but not at the same time with each camera because those cameras don't have that functionality. Streaming will be in 720p because of bandwidth limitations, on later missions that will be 1080p. Recorded footage will be in 4k. I doubt they won't show what you claim, but I'm afraid no matter what they do you will still have excuses to suit your delusions. That's simply how people like you work, I've seen enough of that.

@@FrankyPi When I am on an airplane, I like to watch the buildings shrink as the plane takes off into the sky. I just want to see the Earth shrink as the spacecraft flies away from it. If that makes me one of 'those' people then whatever. Full, mostly uninterrupted video footage is the only thing that will impress me personally. But if we get another glorified Power Point presentation all of this hype will be for nothing.

@@justinmadrid8712 you realise it takes three days to reach the moon ? you couldnt watch earth shrink in real time if you arent willing to spend hours looking at it which i doubt. Also this mission has countless more important objectives than just fulfilling justins dream of seeing earth shrink

Please try not to boast about how slow and expensive the project is.

that's so incredible! i'm a bit jealous xD

@@xlynx9 not boasting! i'm trying to explain just how much work goes into a project like this. many months of work for a single day to see if it all pays off

@@gamersdigester Yeah, many people think only about the costs and not about all the benefits groundbreaking missions like these will bring. Partly because many of them won't reach the news

i'd have settled for 1080P if we'd have done it in 2009 or 2017! i remember our entire class stopping to watch the launch of Apollo 17 in December of '72! This is all very exciting, but we may never be forgiven for how we spent those 50 years after we managed this feat in 10!!!

8K HDR 90FPS

You can already, just watch any random Hollywood film of astronauts on the Moon. Other than that, we will not be seeing men on the Moon anytime soon. Sorry my friend.

@@justinmadrid8712 So you don't think this will work? Or do you think it is a hoax? Or the more likely scenario that the world will descend into economic chaos😞

@@CodeNeonMC that is completely useless since you have only 1K monitor lmao

👍right on Robert

Im 67 and I envy you. The future is yours Robert.

I'm very jealous of your young age though i also only 19 in october later lol

Cool man! Sincerely someone who is born at the same year, probably

I'm 15 and have heard so much about the past. When I was growing up not much happened that was groundbreaking. Now with SpaceX and Artemis 1 it feels like EVERYTHING is happening. It's really inspiring especially in these times..

Why was your dad doing 69 in front of the t.v?!

Imagine being a child before cars even existed and then being old and watching the 1st moon landing. No wonder they thought we'd have cities there by now.

69 is kind of a difficult position for watching TV

@@RoundingThird I think you have your dates mixed up lol

@@shelby6 People who were born before electricity was standard have watched the moon landing, I think you have your dates mixed up.

this is just one of two rockets that we will see in this program . . so yeah . this realy is just the front half of it

I hope starship pwnz artimus durp to the moon and back.

​@@bluewhalestudioblenderanim1132 It's not that negative. The budget is already approved until Artemis V while other is planned until Artemis X. The production run of the rocket is only beginning, while block upgrade is on work.

@@DOSFS The budget is an illusion. It was made to provide jobs, not to launch anything in particular. You doubt it? Artemis was planned for 2016 and still didn't pass any dress rehearsal. The celebrated date came after a "readiness review" . One of the problems was the launch tower, an old one that was refurbished to save time and money, which obviously didn't do either. The program is plagued with cost overruns and bad managerial decisions. Which is why is so good for jobs. So far the taxpayers are not that emotionally involved with it, when they will be aware of the costs and that we will go there for just a few days a year, place a flag and take some selfies, I expect the program will have its budget reviewed and delayed, and then cancelled. In light of Starship, it will be an humiliation and field day for opportunistic politics.

@@derrekvanee4567 what the heck did u try to say ? Lol

Me too. Hope that I saw humans walk on the moon once again in my lifetime.

Not unless you plan to live to 2100?

Interplanetary travel may still be within our lifetime though.

@@Pr0fane26 NO MANNED LUNAR LANDING BEFORE 2100: OK. I've made an assertion, which, to you seems controversial. Even unreasonable? The emphasis is on me to back it up. I've made this assertion elsewhere as well, on here. I think I will need to write a considered piece. A long comment. A micro-article? But, let me introduce myself first: I'm British, and a lifelong student of Project Apollo. My respect for Americans - their innovation and enthusiasm is total. Let me say that, with unlimited money and commitment Americans can do anything in space. Anything within the laws of physics. I will write that piece for you, and others. And. I will return to argue it in considered detail.

"again"???? Have they ever *really* done it???

I am not even joking, that's the only thing that have stopped me from trying to commit suicide a few times in the past. The thought of "I still want to see (insert thing here) happen".

@@Voltorb1993 yeah life blows, haha. I remember back in the day as a kid thinking how awesome it was going to be to be an adult. Oh how wrong I was....

I know what you mean it’s what keeps me going! We are so lucky to be alive during these exciting times of exploration and feats of mankind

I understand and feel the same way. Moments like these where humans want to uncover the unknown and explore exotic places makes me want to stay a little longer just to see how it goes.

Well yeah but I fear we will all perish before the really good stuff. 22nd century would have rocked

I do too, but at what point does it become a reality TV show to re-focus our attention from the world's problems? Yeah, the world had problems during Apollo, but none so existential. I am afraid it will serve as "Oh look over there, a birdy!" while everything crumbles around us. The last time there was a huge space drive, on Earth we were improving just as much. Building, engineering, world was overall changing for the better (decolonization etc.). Now? With everything going down the toilet as you say, this seems to me like an empty victory. Yay, people are going back to the Moon... while everything is absolutely terrible here with a worsening perspective. In the 1960's and 1970's there were also shitty things, problems etc. but we were on the upward trajectory as species on this planet. It simply stains the feeling of joy for me. It would be like you getting a pay bump... while your house is burning down. Sure, the pay bump is really nice and will allow you to do more things in the future... but, the house is burning down, with your entire life in it.

@@Wustenfuchs109 wow

What temperature is it on the moon?

@@TheJrcattle 5, give or take a hundred or so. Do you mean average temperature?

I remember that launch also, December 21, 1968. I was 8 years old at the time.

I'm so jealous that i wasn't alive to see Apollo. Arguably one of the most important moments in human history. Artemis is the best us Millennials and Gen Z have in our lifetimes. Hopefully it fulfills its goals with the help of SpaceX.

I only remember the last time we sent men to the moon, even though I know I had seen earlier missions. That was about the time I started Kindergarten. In the first episode of Futurama, they go to the moon, and Fry wants to do "the countdown." Nobody any younger than myself understands the depth of Fry's disappointment, when they reach their destination, before he even finishes.

Spaceships has to get a lot more cheaper if that’s going to happen

Like the razerback from the expanse?

@@pricelessppp never got in to the show so don’t know the reference

I think that breakthrough would be "impulse" drives that can recharge from the sun and travel from planet to planet in just a few days, can you imagine this? Space Highways ;D

@@2k7u If we can somehow harness solar radiation. We maybe able to do just that.

Not giving credit where its due will always be a shameless deed.

@@Afrocanuk it's because no one cares who built it but who launches it

Except for that ISS thing, which is a human-rated vessel.

To @@UncleKennysPlace’ point, I’ve edited the comment to say “rocket” not “vessel”.

So what's your point?

Don't know whether you can say there's absolutely no fear of nuclear armageddon with Russias attack on Ukraine atm

It's gonna be 4K HDR this time though.

@@Raj-gr6dy RTX On!

I watched the moon landings in the 60s. Can't believe it's taken this long to go back - we all thought the landings would just continue...

@@richardhince9764 The original space race was too politically charged, so once it was no longer politically relevant, space agencies started losing funding and public interest slowly died out. But so glad we're finally getting back to it in my lifetime, and now it's no longer about proving which ideology/country is better/right, it's just competition.

@@randyhill9078 Starship is a deathtrap. The next time someone dies in space, mark my words it will be on Ego Musky Man's poorly-built hardware. Despite not being an engineer he sure has a lot of engineering opinions that make his cars explode (or run over children) and satellites overheat and die (because he insists on having them painted black). SLS is the only vehicle capable of safe travel to the moon that we have until the CNSA finishes theirs.

@@rocklobster3414 Uh yeah actually I do expect ISRO and CNSA to build safe spacecraft. Admittedly the Chinese government may want to rush things but so did the US government decades ago. Apollo 1 for example shows that the US had a lack of safety concerns about their astronauts. The Chinese government likes to look good and so they make damn sure they don't mess up something so important. Tiangong right now is a safer station than the ISS which is in dire need of funds for replacing the old modules. You might also look at the Soyuz. Regardless of what the government looks like at a given time it has an outstanding safety record and it's the pride of Roscosmos. Ego Musky's stuff doesn't have a good record however. If you study the capsules of the Soyuz and the Dragon you can see a terrifying lack of backups, life support, shielding, and padding, and absolutely no hard wired controls. My bet is on the last one causing catastrophic failure. There's a reason why we don't drive planes, trains, ships, cars, or anything else with a touchpad. Putting a standard tablet in a thinly-walled spaceship into space where there's a lot of radiation is asking for trouble. Those are not the hardened circuits we send to mars or deep space and they can and will fail if exposed to radiation long enough. And that's why you couldn't pay me enough to step foot in a spacex ship.

@@SAOS451316 tbf, that's the Dragon. Starship shielding is another story. Problem is, we don't have it because of a private company that nonetheless gets public dollars. Where is the accountability?

27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. 28 And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians. Artemida=Diana

Launch 2 is a no go, damn!

Astrum mentioned it will use laser links in his "future missions will make radio obsolete" or smth like that name.

Question, how will there be an earthrise if the moon is tidally locked to earth?

@@tuneboyz5634 : The same way that you get a moonrise on Earth :-/

@@tuneboyz5634 earthrise is seen from POV of orbiting spacecraft.

I can look at a livestream of a super high resolution image of my hemisphere of the globe from a geosynchronous Japanese weather satellite whenever I want; why would people who are completely desensitised to seeing satellite images of the earth feel any differently seeing an earth rise in 4K?

And the rocket is 98m tall, not 111m... Too many inaccuracies...

@@wildwoodlight It will be 111m on later configurations like Block 1B Crew and Block 2 Crew

@@wildwoodlight There are 4 different rocket designs. The current one is the shortest of the four. The Mars mission rocket being the tallest

Politics never had gotten in the way of the progress{innovations} as they supposedly did as the Moon exploration is in consideration...Actually the politics should have boosted the Apollo missions{ if they were for real haha} to establish permanent bases on the Moon for the past 50! years with the literally incalculable benefits coming from such endeavor, both political and scientific wise. Dont you think that all the precautions, preparations and such accompanying this particular mission have the air of doing something for a very first time? All the sensors to measure the radiation on the Moon surface after we erm... had sent humans there 7 times in the late 60s and early 70s?What, they lost the data{again..} or they expect dramatic changes in those parameters for the last 50 years?Questions, questions...

@@HgHg-yp6ft your wrong mate politics has always got in the way ....so your telling me the space race had notthing to do with politics...the reason now nasa is coming up with this plan is because china sent probe there ,,,,,,oh yea politics never gets in the way .....i laugh.

@@HgHg-yp6ft Well I think that's part of it. There's been multiple manned moon landings though, so I mean at some point it becomes unnecessary. We don't really need people physically on the moon to study it. Also, there became a lot of pressure to stop manned missions after the challenger and Columbia disasters, in which 14 astronauts died. I think ultimately there was a burnout in space exploration. I mean it was referred to as the space race. And once that race fizzled out, so did space exploration (to some extent). I think this resurgence has mostly been a product of Elon Musk with SpaceX. Public interest has risen and subsequently so has funding.

Why would someone even be threatened by SpaceX ?

@@jhaz89 As I already pointed out having real foothold on the Moon( base, laboratories etc) would have enormous advantages over USSR or anybody else and for me is the natural continuation of the Apollo missions if they were for real...Why trying desperately to build those small, cramped space stations well bellow the VAB if you have such proven access to the Moon itself? Also this particular phenomenon of losing all original data including the blueprint for the Saturn V!? in the span of time shorter than a human generation so to justify the claim that we starting from scratch again is a bit too much for me.Something is super fishy in that whole narrative and the explanation that we did it and " lost interest" after that do not work with me at all.

@@randyhill9078 not very smart, are you?

@@afoxwithahat7846 Randy is just a wet fart in a spacesuit.

@@randyhill9078 NASA's budget is not the US governement's space budget, almost everything they spend on space (probably 90%, the actual number is of course a state secret) is given to the air force (now space force since Trump) They launch rockets, including astronauts, and have a far higher budget than NASA, the US governement cares about being able to nuke Europe and China, not space exploration, NASA's sole role is to serve as a PR agency and to somewhat quell the demands of what they consider a bunch of anoying nerd by giving them around 0.1% of the US's wealth, of course, giving away 0.1% of your ressources is something you do when you really care about something, LOL, you ******s

@@afoxwithahat7846 He's an idiot.

You will have to make it until 2040 at 80 .

@@fritterfoof5146 If we are still acting as foolishly in 2040 as we are in 2022... he and I will be in our 70s watching on our VR screens the announcement that whatever project has been cancelled or postponed. I'm hoping some sort of ambition and common sense comes together in the next few years where all this wasted energy trying to begin a new SPACE RACE is preceded by Russia stopping its idiocy in Ukraine & China ceasing its attempt to finish the job of its ancient conquerors.. and ALL of humanity INCLUDING EUROPE and Japan goes FULL ON to accomplish a Mars landing LATE 2020s - Early 2030s .. to inspire the WORLD and from there a ROBUST move of industry, science, robotic probes and manned missions to both MERCURY & VENUS where underground & airborne installations are possible on each planet respectively. And then onwards to Titan & Enceladus! It's unforgivable that the past 20 years have gone by with this admittedly "better late than never" rebirth of a crucial avenue of human endeavor but it would be worse if we waste our energies moving too slowly until the moon landing is a century in the past.

I was 9... the rest is false.

dark as in dark to us - like as in a form of ignorance, we dont see without sending something up there to look at it for us.

Yes, it's 'dark' as in unknown, not dark as in lightless. Same usage as with dark matter and dark energy. I agree it's confusing for the layman, however

I feel that way too! I'm probably of the same time and age group as your mother. I think of the people older than ME! Every few months those names of astronauts that we all knew by heart goes on their way. Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins. When Buzz Aldrin goes .. we will have watched him go from a young man to an old man while this country is still taking basic baby steps into space because America's ability to think, act, and plan LONG TERM is so badly degraded. Kennedy said "we shall put a man on the moon" and in 8 years with a year's delay we did it and then 6 times we did it again.. but given 50 years we did everything except follow it up!

@@hugofaceplant4723 I hope you get to see man go on Mars. Yes you are right, America has the worst track record for thinking ahead. After all the damage to the climate is evidence of that. And human reaction as a whole in America is even greater evidence of that.

Agree & was surprised he kept referring to Artimus as a "shuttle" given the term is known as something different.

"That, sir, is a *spacecraft*. We do not refer to it as a 'capsule'."

*Spacecraft

@@kmarasin during 17 Apollo missions they called it a capsule . I saw every one of them.

That's just the nature of life, though, isn't it? When you're ahead, you've no competition and it's harder and harder to justify [expensive] endeavors purely for the sake of it. Don't be so hard on your fellow countrymen. What matters is that you take the lead back.

@@MrPoopnoddy Alas my condescending friend, it is my fellow countrymen, in their sloth and confusion, who are hard on everyone. As Edward Gibbon wrote, “All that is human must retrograde if it do not advance.”

Saturn V also cost 87 billion dollars to develop, and it was late by 2 years. SLS can carry up to 46 tons to TLI on the most capable configuration which is Block 2 Cargo.

After watching all this hi-tech prep work they're doing just to go to the moon, I have started wondering if they went to the moon at all in the late 60's. Really.

@@cjay2 They had more funding and more manpower back then, they also took way more risks that wouldn't be anywhere near acceptable for modern day standards, it was the golden era that didn't last long once the funding was slashed. Also, you act like sending a human rated spacecraft to orbit the Moon is no big deal. This doesn't happen every day, last time a human rated spacecraft went beyond LEO was in 1972 on Apollo 17. It doesn't matter what technology you have, this is the most demanding type of spaceflight by far, there will always be a lot of preparation and testing. Robotic missions are way less expensive, less demanding, less complex than human spaceflight for reasons that should be obvious.

@@FrankyPi "they also took way more risks that wouldn't be anywhere near acceptable for modern day standards" lmao the only thing that has improved quality wise in the USA since the apollo days are OSHA standards due to Apollo 1 and traditional american barbecue

If this program gains traction politically like during the cold War, we could totally see a lunar hotel in my lifetime. Although China's economy isn't doing too good.

Solving problems in space often allows us to solve problems on earth more efficiently

I wouldn't repeat that in front of other engineers. Not knowing differential equations, thermodynamics, electromagnetism or mechanics is what the rest of engineers understand as an engineer. Actually using the word engineer next to software is considered excessive. I'm not trying to be unpleasant, but if you don't believe me, ask anyone else

@@melle9155 Spinoffs are big. Space is basically warfare but without war. Imagine a soldier on the battlefield where danger lurks around every corner. Except even the air, soil, and light can kill you

@@dylangtech another use of space is to 3D print any organ. We can only 3d print small and simple organs on earth due to the effects of gravity. But if we can make a commercially viable space station that 3D prints complex and large organs, we can save a lot of lives.

The race to the moon is now a relay race

@@boonchuanong1520And it will take a long time

There won't be another manned landing on the moon before 2100.

I'm not sure if pick up where it left off is the right term. Apollo successfully sent a large payload and real people to the moon several times and did it 50 years ago.

Like 60 years later lawl. What we did from nothing in 4 years to what we've done in 60 years with not a hugely snaller budget... Elon Tusk, Manleyest Scotty wee laddy, and fly safe!

Well, better than chimps and dogs like in the past

@@vladconstantinminea I don't think dogs were ever used to test human spacesuits for some weird reason

We HAVE to th Moon, you know. 1969-1972 (not including preliminary orbits, etc).

@@LemonLadyRecords yeah but we went up there did some tests and didnt go back. the apollo missions were never about doing more than pissing down on the ussr from orbit. while artemis is probably a similar thing just with china instead, we can hope that whatever innovations we make up there can help us go farther.

the difference is that europeans crossing the atlantic could somewhat survive on the other side by hunting animals and drinking from river (not to mention BREATHING THE AIR), on the moon not so much, so the whole "crossing the ocean" metaphor doesn't really apply, maybe "finally going to the mariana trench and staying there" would be a more fitting metaphor?

@@panic5306 "and didn't go back" but.... *artemis*? hello? "the apollo missions were never about doing more than pissing down on the ussr from orbit." The apollo missions were about PR and bringing moon rocks to earth the Artemis missions are about PR and nothing else since now we have probes that are more than equiped to do any sample return we might want (NASA has one of it's current tiny project be the return of samples from mars, which is orders of magnitude more complicated to set up as a mission than to do it from the moon, trust me, if we want rocks from the moon, we can get them with a probe for cheap (comparatively cheap) ) "we can hope that whatever innovations we make up there can help us go farther." the US doesn't share it's innovations, and since they don't even meticulously record everything they do, even the future US engineers will get almost no knowledge from this program, same as Apollo, same as what is happening with fission energy in Germany and the USA, if they did meticulously record all of their R&D discoveries and the good ways they learned of doing every single job, then the project would cost 3 times what it does now and people would complain even more the reality is, Artemis really is just Apollo 2.0 electric boogaloo, and this time they don't even have a reason to send astronauts there beyond the media publicity since robotics and computing has advanced a lot since Apollo, unlike literally anything related to space

@CR Hill Nope just postponed 🙌🏿

Yeah, and it only cost $10,000,000...

@@Quickened1 wow, 10 million to draw an A? Your claim really does not add up lol. At least make up a logical story if you're gonna lie.

@@ET-yc4wb it's called humor! You know, because of all the cost overruns... 10M sounds like a bargain?

I'm still waiting!!!! NASA, do you need some duct tape for the leak?

Apollo was squashed due to budget considerations. It accounted for around 1-2% of GDP when it was operating as a program. NASA got the rugged pulled out from them. Then the shuttle program came about and its focus was more on launching hubble, launching scientific, communication, and military satellites (related missions were classified), and of course its sending parts for the construction of the International Space Station (ISS). So we had around 3 decades of the Shuttle Program. Since then, NASA has relied on the Russian Soyuz to get supplies and Astronauts to the ISS. There have been voices critical of these high-level decisions and that we've just been "circling the Earth". I also believe it is a bit of lower tolerance for risk. Hypothetically if Apollo continued, and NASA given the appropriate budget and directions it seems most likely we would have set-up some rudimentary manned bases on Mars by now. Let's look at Stanley Kubrick's "2010" movie in which that hypothetical space vessel reaches the orbit of Jupiter and uses "air braking" as the planet's enormous gravity has it buzzing at an unbelievable speed around the planet. As many have commented here, the political focus changed; hence NASA was forced to focus on things closer to "home". I believe China has plans to reach the moon. Their space program is developing rapidly. Space shuttle and ISS crew have pulled people from many nations such as Japan, Israel, Canada, and various members of the EU, and others. The costs are astronomical (sorry for the pun), so it makes sense for things to be a "joint effort" across nations. Only those countries with the world's deepest pockets/ largest GDP's can afford to independently fund space missions. Say thanks to our politicians for delaying real progress for 30 some years. We need more visionaries who know how to get stuff done.

this channel's videos are riddled with errors like this

Totally agree with you! People forget what good as come from space program! If weren’t for space exploration we would have computers

I should hope nobody actually wants Artemis to fail (and I certainly don't), but the entire SLS program has been mismanaged from day one and is an exemplar of everything wrong with the government side of space exploration and its incestuous relationship with certain industries who consistently fail to deliver on contracts within anything close to a budget and with mediocre results. As much as I want to see Artemis be completely successful, there is more than enough reason to worry about it right now.

They are never hold responsible for mistakes at taxpayers expense.

Maybe it's something to do with $4 BILLION per each flight! Tax payers money well spent . Don't worry, Elon will fix it.

@@toby-xo6rb While using reusable engines (and other parts) they got out of storage, for a 1 time trip. Its just really really sad this is all they could acomplish for the $.

I won't be live. There will be a delay of about 1.3 seconds.

i’m kinda upset about it since i spent around half a grand to see it in person and i will not be their on friday sadly

@@RalseiGaming daaaam

@CR Hill the only rocket in the entire world which is reusable is only f9 and fh, any other rocket isn't, being not reusable doesn't mean obsolete, this is a new type of industry and NASA have big problems with their politics and bosses which prefer safer but older technology but more that has been tested and assured for years, only some part are old technology by the way, the entire capsule and 3rd stage have se of the most advanced technology used today.

@CR Hill I'm not gonna disagree on the fact of dragon because it's obviously more capable but deep space travel is much more hard, that's part of the cause of developing a deep space capsule also the politics Orion as been developed with made it cost a lot more than I was needed and the one to blame is only the USA government

lmao post anihilated by the passage of time

There'll be a lot of research into space mining. Therefore there will be inevitable, invaluable discoveries in the process...

the exact opposite, the smart thing to do would be developping space mining, what they are actually doing here and the goal is a PR mediatic operation with a tiny sprinkling of science on the side, like a dash of salt on a meal

​@@Quickened1 space mining is only useful for stuff you build and keep in space, bringing stuff down to earth is like burning wealth, all the stuff that is already in space is stuff you don't need to build a gigantic rocket with a 1% payload fraction (lmfao) to get to space and that's where "the problem" comes in, "the problem" is that space mining only makes sense for building stuff in space, and right now no one on the planet has any plans to build anything in space, aka there won't ever be any space mining something I bring up from time to time: NO ONE on earth has yet sent a single capsule tied to a cable to test what the effects of artificial gravity actually were, and we know that the human body cannot survive 0G for long periods of time now, try to think why no one thought it prudent to spend a single rocket launch, a minuscule ammount of money, to get the science for the single most important aspect of human presence in space Oh that's right, because no one has any plans to have a presence in space in the future, NASA has always been a mix of a glorified media company and some pandering to empovrished scientists by throwing at them a few scraps so that they can make their little probes once a decade (we still don't have any image of like half the objects in our solar system lmao) try to figure out why a conman like elon musk would rather send a car into space than test out if artificial gravity actually solved everything or had bad side effects or not if he claims that he "*some incoherent quote about the future of humanity that feels like it was written by jaden smith on twitter*?" How come he always tried to avoid the question before finally denying he would ever fly on one of his own rockets while claiming they're not just a bunch of exploding grain silos (despite solid evidence to the countrary)? How come he would rather shill a car company that he owns, while he gets all his personal wealth from the market manipulation of the share prices of tesla? Why would he lie about the performance of his rockets and the finances (of literally all his companies) of SpaceX if not to secure ever more governement, local state, and private investement (his actual main source of income beyond selling overpriced tesla shares once in a while in a close to illegal manner)? that's the reality of humanity right now, no space presence, no one on the planet planning to ever have a space presence, no one picking the low hanging fruits of an incredibly cheap mission that is required for human habitation is space, while the USA, RF, and the PRC spend all of their actual space investement on military and national security intelligence gathering space assets, and the USA and China once in a while spend a ridiculously small ammount of their budget on a loud and proud project with no long term industrial and almost no scientific benefit, for the sole purpose of entertainment, that gets everyone who is clueless about the current status of both geopolitics, internal policies, and the global space sector, very excited

@adding to my last post and thinking of, the Apollo project happened before proper robots, so back then you actually had a reason to send humans to the moon, like sending crew was unironically a not-so-bad way to collect samples, so despite it's (deserved) reputation as a PR operation, it actually had far more reason to exist than artemis

Today is 9-25-22 and it STILL has not launched. Delay after Delay.

I also checked the price, it seems that the price per launch of the Apollo program is something like 1.3 billion, adjusted for inflation. Something doesn't add up, as I don't see the technological leap that would justify the extra money.

The only function a government can perform is to get in the way of any and all progression of mankind.

Sadly it is the reality of the majority society. No one likes to share , they "want" all of it even if they don't "need" most of it.

But it is intended to be reusable, so it is both a capsule and a shuttle. The old space shuttle was a space truck.

@@emptyshirt No, is a reusable capsule. "Shuttle" is a term that came to be associated with a winged vehicle. The term refers to the method of Earth return, and has nothing to do with reusability.

@@bradmaguire6458 A spacecraft with wings for atmospheric flight is a spaceplane, even if it doesn't take off horizontally. Orion was originally intended to be used to _shuttle_ people to and from the ISS, among other missions. A specific vehicle took the word "shuttle" as its name, because it was planned to do a lot more shuttling than it actually did, but we shouldn't let that ruin the word for everyone else. (I don't like generic names like that in general. In 20 years, will people say rockets other than SLS can't be called "space launch vehicles" because it took over the term "space launch"?)

The official term being used for Orion is ‘spacecraft’, which functions as a _shuttle_ and a re-entry _capsule,_ as has been correctly pointed out in other responses. Describing it as simply a ‘capsule’ is completely insufficient.

I've been watching all the SPACE X, Blue Horizon... Captain Kirk stuff as it has been occurring in the last 18 mo's. SLS may be a boondoggle that may consume itself. Makes me sad as I'm one of those kids who didn't know from NASA & top heavy organizational dysfunction. Those were all heroes on an heroic mission. Regardless I'm gonna be in my basement early morning tomorrow. Exciting times all over the world for Space Tech. But tomorrow? That's the BIG ONE!

@@hugofaceplant4723 the basement? Is that the fun spot where TV watching happens or the oh sh¡t! The rocket is gonna crash, we better take cover room??? just curious about your comment:)

How did that party go for you? Lmfao

@@earlthepearl4161 I had a great time. I watch some streams, I ate a bunch of snacky food, played with my dogs, smoked some weed. Thank you for the patronizing comment disguised as you being an asshole though. Have a good one!

@@earlthepearl4161 hey, any excuse to make drinks is as good as the next one IMO... but going farther into deep space than humans have ever been is an even better reason for drinks if ya ask me 😉 (then laugh while crying at the.... reality of it all.....)

SpaceX is going to be the leader in Mars missions over NASA. SLS really is much too expensive to get any significant payload to Mars other than very small Apollo style missions.

@@_MaxHeadroom_ The difference being that the SpaceX plans to get to Mars are largely complete fabrications which fall down with any kind of scrutiny. Check out the channel commonsense sceptic for a detailed breakdown. Space ex make one day be able to deliver this, but they certainly will not be able to deliver what they have currently promised. That’s just musk talking out his rear end

Gromit! we've forgotten the crackers!

take a look at everyday astronaut Utube channel, he's got one there

@@randyhill9078 SLS will also be able to carry that much and even a bit more than Saturn V on later configurations, 46 tons to TLI on Block 2 Cargo. This is only a first test mission without even life support onboard Orion. Also, it's not using 50 year old Shuttle engines, the oldest one flew in 1998. No engines could fly SLS without the boosters, that's how it was designed.

@CR Hill starship can never be human rated. The reason is simple: it will not have an abort system. Also, the engine's thrust is not weak, its ISP may be lower than other engines, but those are usually much smaller and more complicated, leading to a configuration with more smaller engines, which means more critical points of failure. Also, SRBs are quite cheap, because of the very simple nature of the engine, meaning that most of the cost is just the fuel If you're worried about the rocket exploding because of the SRB, don't worry, SLS is designed with safety in mind. Which is why SLS has a tried and true abort system that can take them away from an exploding rocket, and Starship does not Speaking of which, you all seem to be convinced that starship is more practica and reliable in every way, when the ship is largely undeveloped, undesigned and unproven. Not to mention, most of the test flights ended in a fire ball Finally, it took over 80 billion USD to develop the Saturn V. This is a huge improvement in cost savings.

@CR Hill @CR Hill 1. Because they are using proven technology. And the first launch is uncrewed for testing anyways. Spacex used an integrated thrusters system, which is very different, so of course they'd test it more. 2. Most of what you said here is not true. There is a perceived redundancy with having more engines, but it also adds a lot more complexity and more points of failure that can blow up the rocket. It is not the most successful rocket. Soyuz is far more successful. And saturn V only had on big component failure its lifetime. 3. Maybe I was wrong about this. 4. Whether or not that's the case, tell me, does starship have an abort system? 5. I wouldn't call it clean sheet, considering that it's trying to fit Musk's vision, not the customer. Heavily tested to destruction is not necessarily a good thing. Most of the tests ended in explosions related to the engine. If the SLS prematurely tests, they know you will cry out at the slightest mistake. 6. Why reinvent the wheel? The systems used in Apollo missions were very successful, so just modernize them. Credit where credit is due, the falcon 9s were impressive but that does not mean it fits the mission criteria. Starship is not fully developed yet, let alone proven. That $20b is to ensure that the odds of something going wrong are close to none. They did the same thing with JWST, and it pays off.

@@randyhill9078 arent solid fuel boosters insanely cheap comared to the liquid ones? the reason they're not being used for the whole ascent stage (at least not usually, there was actually one american rocket that did exactly that) is because they always will have lower exhaust velocity, so it turns out to be less efficient than liquid engines for the size of the rocket, but in terms of how much they actually cost, they're far cheaper than liquid rockets, especially when you get into the high pressure/cryo/turbopumps, which is basically all liquid engines