Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Artemis Vs Apollo full preview! (Patreon)

Published:
2020-09-12 14:57:55
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

IT’S HERE EVERYONE !!! Please give Apollo Vs Artemis your full attention and let me know if you catch any errors or problems, mostly things that are factually wrong, misspellings or errors in the video. Things that would prevent me from posting it tomorrow. Thanks everyone!!! I’m really excited about this one. We worked extra hard on it and it’s amazing!

Files

Previews only

Artemis V Apollo Full

Comments

Anonymous

The timestamps aren't on the YouTube timeline...is that supposed to be in this preview?

Anonymous

Hi Tim, spotted a spelling error at 25.09 at the bottom you have spelled "Artemis" as "Aretemis"

Caspar
>>43920012

I don't think so, there's description at all, which is where you add them. I think this is only about the video itself.

Anonymous

It seems to me that the music is too loud compared to your voice. Besides that, amazing video! I'm sure you put A LOT of work to bring such high quality content for us and we appreciate and recognize that! Thanks, Tim!

Steve Ehrmann

Around 8:30, isn't DeltaV also a function of the gravity field. Launching the CM/SM from earth's surface would have as much delta V and starting the engine in space (?)

Anonymous

That.... was...... AWESOME! Apart from the comments already added I don't see anything else.

Anonymous

Hi Tim. Appreciate your research and sharing of info. One suggestion around the 7 minute mark would be to note differences between Block 1 and Block 2 command modules and the redesigns/improvements after the Apollo 1 fire.

Anonymous

Wow man! Your videos have taken a giant leap. Love the pacing and super clear graphics <3

Steve Ehrmann

Around 36:00 you said the cost estimate was "conservative". What did you mean? That, if the estimate was off, the actual cost would probably be greater, Or that this estimate might be on the high side of likely and in truth it might be less?

Steve Ehrmann

Around 40:00 you refer to "depreciating" the development cost. Perhaps you meant "amortizing"?

Anonymous

Hi Tim just watched, I enjoyed it, only critism would be some parts are a little bit too techy.. for a new person. My fiancée said that she liked the video it was informative, but she said your T shirt could do with an iron, but you're beard is well groomed and suits you but she does like the nerd/ geek universe lol😂 As I didn't have a launch (candles) for my birthday unlike your Dad, Tim, it was good to have a patreon preview instead!

Dave B

Great Job!

Anonymous

Excellent. Terrific graphics.

Anonymous

Excellent video! Graphics were so helpful.

Anonymous

I really enjoyed it. During the main part of the video--before the rant--at about 39m, you say something like: "Luckily, these services will be fixed price contracts. So once we know the actual costs, it will be virtually impossible to have cost overruns." The fixed fee contracts NASA has let in the past to some subs have not worked out that way. Maybe the way to say this is something like "these fixed fee contracts should not have cost overruns if NASA learns from its earlier mistakes pointed out by the OIG" or something like that. Here is one place the OIG says NASA mis-managed its fixed fee contracts, and there are other places as well: https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-20-005.pdf

Rob A

Great video as always. Complex in parts, but better to challenge than to simplify too much. And your enthusiasm is always contagious. A slight smile about comparing the first commercial flight across the Atlantic to Lindbergh's crossing in 1927. Of course we all know that the first flight across the Atlantic was in 1919, by Alcock & Brown. We do all know that, right? :-)

EverydayAstronaut
>>43924167

I don’t think it’s tied to gravity. There’s gravity loses from TWRs and there’s ISP changes from atmosphere vs vacuum but not dV

Ulf Asplund

Great video, my girls now are going on a binge on your other videos. Would be insightful to hear what you believe will be there by 2024 and beyond. Personally I believe that SpaceX will have eclipsed Artemis by 2024, and by 2026+ have put it to rest.

EverydayAstronaut
>>43927466

Yes, I believe those two words can be used interchangeably in this way though, I actually did say amortized in another take. I’ll take a listen

Anonymous

Also, LM computer errors would not have resulted in failure. They could safely be ignored and were.

Anonymous

Nice video. I'd like to repeat my former nits that the LEM was actually the LM. The 'E' was dropped in 1966 before it was ever launched. NASA thought the 'E'xcursion part was too flippant for such a serious item.

Anonymous

Great video Tim. Loved it!

Anonymous

Watched with my kiddo today. Great job, Tim! A couple parts bugged me though. A few minutes in, you were speculating about something and ended the bit with, "I don't really know". I would drop the part that you don't know. Also, the rant got a little heated, don't you think? The rest of the video is very professional but the rant kind of reminds me of Pumpkin Suit Tim.

Darrel Crane

Wow, did I love the rant!!!!! Hard to image the cost of updating RS25's and the SRB's. Like paying up the wazoo to update your PC with new hardware components and costing more than just buying a new different PC. I think some of the issues is that with each election, the new President wants to change the focus or methods to accomplish NASA's goals.

Darrel Crane

I don't understand how the more powerful new rocket can't carry the LM with it too, since the CSM is lighter. Is it the orbit that they park in taking more energy?

Anonymous

There is a youtube ad for "hottest sleepwear" at 6:05, Also som dental service, which may or may not be privacy-leakage. At 25:09 there is Artemis is spelled Aretemis

Anonymous

At 14:08 you use LEO without explaining, and shortly after TLI. Perhaps use unabbreviated the first time. At 15:56 you use near rectilinear halo orbit without introducing it (it is done just after it). Maybe you could mention the lunar gateway is planned to be placed in a so-called near rectilinear halo orbit, which can be used as an intermediate post for later missions. Some other stuff in that paragraph can then be left out, there is too much stuff in this paragraph that confuses and will be clear anyway later. I love the trajactory animations! 21:30 The radio waves seem to hang around on the moon for some time before bouncing back :) Of course in reality the first wave will already bounce back immediately on touching the surface... well maybe I'm a nitpick. 22:04 I really miss the 8 shape trajactory here. Would clarify enormously to show it here. Or if too much work, at least show the beautiful Apollo 8 badge and tell that they had this badge because they went around the moon for the first time, in this 8-shaped orbit. 23:50 You mention the presence of the lunar gateway in this orbit before the fact that this is the NRHO. I would swap this around, makes more sense to me. (I would prefer to just use halo orbit instead, no need for yet another abbr.). 26:58 I miss the lunar gateway in orbit Great video! I do like the technical stuff more than budgets, but good for a change and to put these costs in perspective.

Anonymous

The cost diagrams starting around minute 37 have a way too low contrast blue color for Orion over the gray background. The bars are still visible fine but the numbers (starting with "$2B" at almost exactly the 37min mark) are not really readable at all on my phone without focusing a lot and looking really closely. Edit: Also the HLS yellow stands out sooo much. Ideally all three colors would be more similar in perceived brightness. And I don't like the "average cost per mission column" as it is actually a "running average" without stating so. My guess is that this can be quite confusing for people raising questions like e.g. "why is the average cost so much higher than the mission cost for late missions". And the script doesn't help at all with statements like calling it "the cost of the program divided by the mission" or saying "Artemis 2 would come down to about 19.2 billion". Better would be calling it something like "the total cost of the program after each mission divided by the number of missions so far" (that's a mouthful, I know) and it isn't "Artemis 2" that is coming down but instead "the running average is coming down when Artemis 2 gets included". Staying on the topic of this averages table, the diagram even says "AVG. COST/MISSION" which, and you speak of "cost divided by the mission" thus this can be read as "average cost divided by the number of missions" instead of "average cost per mission" but the former would be incorrect. And I don't like the animation, especially how it draws over the actual costs and makes them disappear. I don't see too much value in presenting a running average at all in the first place and it definitely is NOT more important than the actual costs. If you somehow interpret the last visible version of the diagram as the "final and complete diagram" then it is a confusing and perhaps even misleading diagram you produced there. (Seriously, pause at 39:42, take a screenshot and ask anyone you know if they understand that diagram.) Perhaps an easier to understand animation would place an average in an extra column and update that average value as you somehow indicate more and more missions being considered (for example by greying out the non-included lines while that average is displayed). (To clarify: I mean for example the average for 3 missions REPLACES the average for 2 missions on screen and so on. And perhaps you also only need to show the averages that you actually say verbally, animating a direct transition from a 3 mission average to an 8 mission average)

Anonymous

Great Vid, love the passion, keep up the great work 8)

Anonymous

It’s your Opus Dei Tim. I’ve listened to the other video 3 times already and sat and watched this the whole way through.

Edward Wittkofski

Tim - This is an excellent program. I would say that I think the Artemis program, as it exists has to go forward to its completion. This is important for the political necessity to get the funding. I am intrigued that the the program might have some possibilities of bringing more commercial partners into the project as it matures as a program and maybe even replace some of the elements. When we get to the 2028 timeframe and begin building a more permanent base, commercial ships may even be doing most of the work. What part will international partners, like Russia and India, play in transporting humanity to the Moon? Somehow the images of "2001, A Space Odyssey" seem a lot more plausible with the vision that you describe. The next man and women to land on the Moon will be taking another small step for Mankind, but giant steps will be many in the not so distant future.

Anonymous

Two things nagged me: (1) the Apollo lunar orbit you depicted is retrograde to the actually used orbit; (2) you didn't explicitly mention the thing that bugs me most about SLS: not only are they taking RS-25D rocket engines stockpiled from the STS program (to "save" development costs(!!!) -- they are taking these engines that were *designed* to be re-used, and *were* in fact re-used, and *throwing them away* 4 at a time with each SLS launch! (They're also throwing away the designed-to-be-reusable SRBs with each SLS launch but, well, who cares about solids? ;-)

Pythos Richthofen

Copied from my comment on the You tube vid**** Honestly looking at those cost over-runs for the SLS, I do think the re-birth and re-vamping of the Saturn V (with perhaps even including the original idea of making at least the 1st stage recoverable) would have been a better course. The fact SLS needs to use SRBs opposed to just having 5 massive engines for the first stage combined with the fact the SLS is LESS capable to me is just inexcusable. But I am familiar with this being in the Aerospace industry where in the light general aviation field Cessna spent MORE for a far less capable aircraft (the Cessna 162 sky catcher), than they did for the venerable Cessna 150/152. (actually the 152 is just a revamp and re-engining of the venerable Cessna 150, which had THE SAME ENGINE, Continental O-200, that decades later would power the Cessna 162). It just seems like those at the helm of these big companies lack the common sense of seeing how when something costs more, but is less capable than an already tried and trusted design....there is something amiss. The Orion is just baffling as well. I totally get going for solar power opposed to power cells, but why a service module that again is less capable than the Apollo's SM? Again, common sense would suggest the SM for a CM that is bigger and with more crew capacity would require either an SM of the same power and DV, or MORE, not less. The lunar landers I think are the only aspect of this program that make any sense. I LIKE the Starship, but I also like the lander that seems to only jettison two tanks....but if things were done different perhaps there would be no need to even do that. Re-usable landers in this day and age are a must, so the fact all three are either fully or partially re-usable is a good thing to see. But...the SLS. Does the term "boondoggle" come to mind? Now... the video.....Tim, You knocked it out of the park, and your honest to heart rant was much appreciated. Thank you.

Anonymous

You didn’t figure the cost of Gateway in. This wholly unnecessary add-on will cost billions to fly and maintain while adding substantially to the risks.

Anonymous

Having to rendezvous with Gateway also adds to the cost of each Artemis mission. It’s a legacy of the asteroid-capture boondoggle.

Anonymous

Other than not including the cost of Gateway into the total cost of Artemis, it was an excellent video, Tim. Well;-researched and well written.

Anonymous

Dear Tim, I've tried to contact you via other means, but got no response. I deeply apologize, but I have to do it in comments here. I'm not able to get access to the Discord channel. I'm pretty much sure that it was fair mistake by one of your staff members and would like to ask you to help me to gain access to Discord channel. I do support you and the work you do. Thanks in advance. P.S. I don't want to try my other options to gain access to feature (perk) INCLUDED with my Patreon membership until I will exhaust all of non-confrontational ways to do so.

Anonymous

Hey Tim, great Episode, just watching it on Youtube. Behind the scenes question, what software are you using to create the animated info graphics? After Effects? Or some special brew?

Anonymous

Artemis and SLS is idiotic by the actual cost/funding aspects. Pork barrel politics that funded this Boeing et al. venture needs immediate cancellation for better reuse systems. This reminds me of the state of our automotive industry. Too many truly wasteful models that simply underachieve on conservation. We need leadership to think strategically beyond our timespan and look at effective long range planning. One system, perhaps SpaceX? What a concept!

William Warren

Landing Legs - Why does a solution have to wait on Elon Musk? If nothing substantive - like solving the landing legs issue once and for all - gets done at SpaceX without Elong being directly involved, then SpaceX has a fatal flaw that is going to kill it in the near future. Where is CEO Gwen? Why hasn't she taken some initiative to solve this issue?

Anonymous
>>47067691

I agree. And how can you say SLS is better than the Saturn V? Sure, it costs less, but the Saturn V could take more to the moon and didn't even need SRBs to do it!