Will Starship and Commercial Landers Make Artemis Better Than Apollo?

Ciencia y tecnología

NASA's making some big moves to finally get humans back to the moon for the first time in over 50 years. The Artemis program is shaping up with checks written and hardware built! So how does a 21st Century program to the moon compare to that of the 1960's?
In Today's video, we’re going to answer the question, why does NASA think Artemis will be a sustainable program when SLS is sooooo dang expensive AND it’ll take at least two launches to get humans and their lunar landers to the moon.
This CAN’T be more sustainable than Apollo, right? Well, we didn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the costs, so today we’re going to really dive into the total costs, including development, infrastructure and hardware by giving SLS and Orion a full cost audit.
But we’ll even show you how the Apollo program and Artemis mission profiles differ including the specific orbits and rendezvous and everything required to get humans to the surface of the moon and even talk about the upgraded safety considerations and hardware involved.
Once we look at all these details, we can answer the question, 50 years later, is the Artemis program actually an improvement over the Apollo program or is NASA going completely in the wrong direction when returning to the moon?
#ApolloVSArtemis #SLSVSSaturnV
00:00 - Intro
03:50 - The Hardware
15:55 - The Missions
29:15 - Safety & Upgrades
35:50 - Program Costs
46:20 - Rant
52:25 - The Good Parts of Artemis
55:35 - Conclusion
Want to support what I do? Consider becoming a Patreon supporter for access to exclusive livestreams, our discord channel and subreddit! - patreon.com/everydayastronaut
This video wouldn't be possible with out the generous support of my Mission Directors on Patreon!!! - Frans de Wet, Gregory M. McKee, Chad Souter, Sam Fisher, Jason Kelnhofer, pexis petersons, Eric Beavers, Arthur Carty, Lawrence Mansour, Bob Lewis, DLB, Joshua Rule, Ryan M., David Glover, Scott G Raderstorf, Nicholas T. Gallman, Max Haot, John Malkin, TTTA, Jared smith, Simon Pilkington, Héctor Ramos, Tomdmay , Mac Malkawi, Ole Mathias Aarseth Heggem
Or become a ESpast member for some bonus perks as well! - espast.info/channel/6uKrU_WqJ1R2HMTY3LIx5Q.htmljoin
The best place for all your space merch needs!
All music is original! Check out my album "Maximum Aerodynamic Pressure" anywhere you listen to music (Spotify, iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, etc) or click here for easy links - everydayastronaut.com/music
I'm the cohost of an awesome podcast where we talk all about current technologies and how they shape our future! ourludicrousfuture.com or here on ESpast espast.info


  • Yes Sir
    Yes SirHace un hora

    Shoutout to KSP for actually teaching me stuff that was required for this video

  • david henry
    david henryHace 15 horas

    Can there really be a comparison between Apollo and Artemis? Everything- electronics, computer systems, even intergrated circuits, liquid rocket engines and many other technologies were pushed to a limit by Apollo. Apollo created much of the infrastructure for rockets that America has today. What Apollo achieved was invaluable. What companies like Boeing are doing to artimes is pure greed, and should be considered as criminal. I understand the anger caused by this unnecessary wastage. And I am Australian, not American. I do think NASA is on its way towards getting the funding directed where it can give the best value, I hope I am correct, and wish NASA and the U.S. taxpayerall the best.

  • J Egbert
    J EgbertHace 3 días

    The boundless cost practically step because jacket thermodynamically squash alongside a cooperative neck. womanly, voracious carp

  • William Hutton
    William HuttonHace 4 días

    take a shot every time someone says that NASA should just give all of Artemis' money to Elon Musk

  • MrPhysX
    MrPhysXHace 4 días

    MrPhysx watch the new video

  • stonegames sm
    stonegames smHace 4 días

    i have watched this video about 6 times since it came out and i still enjoy watching it

  • Elijah Marshall
    Elijah MarshallHace 6 días

    Did part 3 ever come?

  • S.E. Sander
    S.E. SanderHace 7 días

    NASA has, since this video & mustve seen this video, chosen SpaceX as it's Human Lander System provider. They took your advice but still will eat billions in lost funds building the infrastructure. Like you said, stacking a billion dollars would reach beyond the height at which the mobile launcher is built to 🤣

  • Kayden That
    Kayden ThatHace 7 días

    in 40:00 ,total cost is 69.1B

  • rbxless
    rbxlessHace 8 días

    "Yes, they dropped a tank once. WOOPS!"

  • Stuart Brown
    Stuart BrownHace 9 días

    Excellent discussion document Really enjoyed it THankyou Stuart in Ireland

  • assimo
    assimoHace 10 días

    Very interesting video, sorry for being extremely too late! :)

  • Steve McCormack
    Steve McCormackHace 13 días

    I am a great believer in sending an unmanned version to the Moon/Mars landing site ahead of the actual manned flight. This enables the mission to test all the craft involved and also gives reassurance because it would carry ahead lots of food, water, oxygen and equipment needed. It can even mean a spare space craft with engines can be on hand on the target site with spares of everything should they be needed. So the pressure is taken off everyone.

  • Dave Dopson
    Dave DopsonHace 13 días

    Apollo was doing something new. Artemis is a corporate jobs program.

  • Ra'Heem Baines
    Ra'Heem BainesHace 14 días

    The way SpaceX lands their starship (with this bellyflop maneuver) makes me nervous for the astronauts.

  • Jaimin


    Hace 13 días

    They won't do this on the moon. No atmosphere means that the belly flop won't slow it down. They plan on landing it with the engines around the middle of the Lunar Starship

  • jerry zerkle
    jerry zerkleHace 14 días

    i think nasa is lazy

  • Michael G

    Michael G

    Hace 10 días

    It's not NASA, it's the funding they receive. NASA and Spacebflight has lost the public's interest so less money goes to NASA, meaning they do not have the money required to do everything they want to do, which is why they fund private companies. You also have to think about taxpayer money, the general public doesn't like it when their money goes to a rocket exploding.

  • Democratic Detox
    Democratic DetoxHace 14 días

    Rest of the world: 95% death rate. BYE. USA: Were goin dammit. 😂😂😂

  • shawn douglass
    shawn douglassHace 14 días

    Thanks for your videos Tim, I'm learning some really cool stuff from you, I may just go and sign up for your Patreon to help you make these😁

  • General Codsworth
    General CodsworthHace 15 días

    I understand your point that Artemis is supposed to be more than just Apollo repeated, but longer stays on the moon are meaningless if the goal is to do something revolutionary compared to what Apollo already did. It doesn't matter that each mission will spend 7 times as long on the surface if they only do it once a year. SLS is not at all sustainable because for Artemis to do something truly new and unique, we need more than 10 people per year to land on the surface. Unless they can reduce the price and increase the cadence by a couple orders of magnitude, SLS needs to be replaced ASAP by something that can launch enough people to establish a permanent human presence on the moon. The way I see it, spending less than a month per year on the moon is just Apollo 2.0. But if Artemis can establish a 100% human presence, as the ISS has done with LEO, then *that* would actually set it apart from Apollo. With SLS, Artemis is just Apollo 2.0. Something else is absolutely required for Artemis to truly go further than her brother. This isn't "orange rocket bad," it's "orange rocket can't put 10 people on the surface every year for more than a few weeks per year while being absurdly expensive." SLS and Starship are at similar development points despite SLS having a significant head start, more funding, and borrowed technology. It may bring the first people to moon in this century, but it won't be able to establish a human presence on the moon that Apollo didn't do already. It may carry more people for longer, but that is a simple numerical upgrade, not a revolutionary change. And besides, the Saturn V with a faster launch cadence put more people on the moon per year during its peak than SLS will ever be able to with only one rocket per year.

  • Peter Lyall
    Peter LyallHace 16 días

    I've always loved the old film footage of Apollo on the Launch pad prior to blast off!!!

  • Mike Diamond
    Mike DiamondHace 16 días

    Like everything else, a change of leadership showing they’re doing their “job” they slash, change, pressure anything beneficial to their own agenda. Yes, I know they have funding and a commitment in place UNTIL an over ambitious tool sticks their fingers into the pie. No one can just leave well enough alone. Becomes a political toy

  • Dongskiii
    DongskiiiHace 17 días

    SpaceX exposing everyone involved in space programs funding.

  • Ken Helmers
    Ken HelmersHace 18 días

    Tim, you cover things very well. My thanks :)

  • saxonsoldier67
    saxonsoldier67Hace 20 días

    Government does nothing well, except to waste money.

  • ChuckyLarms
    ChuckyLarmsHace 20 días

    NASA: Lets make this as complicated as possible.

  • Jetze Schaafsma
    Jetze SchaafsmaHace 20 días

    By how much did the Apollo Programme overrun it's initial budget?

  • Mic_Glow
    Mic_GlowHace 20 días

    46:00 the only way those projects get support from states is by pumping money into local factories. The more, the better. Doesn't matter if it makes sense economically, if it's efficient or done in a timely manner. And government isn't a private company that needs to cut costs everywhere and goes under if they don't deliver a product (or it costs 10x more). If they gave 100 billion to spacex they would have a moon colony the size of a small city by 2030..

  • TJ Tampa
    TJ TampaHace 21 un día

    Details, details. 🚀 ✈️ 😳

  • Jonathan Whiting
    Jonathan WhitingHace 21 un día

    Whelp, you were accurate with the lander animation for the mission profile. Spacex did in fact win the contract.

  • Stallnig
    StallnigHace 21 un día

    near rectal linear orbit hohoho

  • Orbital Hippie
    Orbital HippieHace 22 días

    Tim: conservative cost for first lunar lander; $10 (billion) SpaceX: tHrEe, take it or leave it

  • Benny Yastremski
    Benny YastremskiHace 22 días

    The main reason NASA is pretending to go back to the moon and mars is because they were so obsessed with their secretly , they forgot that china and private companies are on their way to find the truth for our self's! NOW! HOW DO THEY HIND THE TRUTH????????????

  • Robert Steven Schwartz
    Robert Steven SchwartzHace 22 días

    I agree with your rant over the costs. Our government is controlled by the very corporations that receive its largesse in building the various components of Artemis. Politicians that approve the various expenditures receive legal bribes from the same corporations to run their campaigns and look toward future employment by these corporations.

  • chufan luo
    chufan luoHace 23 días

    I mean if SpaceX is going to Mars a year later, why don't you just hand the program to SpaceX, they could do WAY better

  • Shane Dunlap
    Shane DunlapHace 23 días

    We are not moving backwards but definitely spinning our tires in the muck of government bureaucracy and the remnants of the old school way of thinking.

  • Robert
    RobertHace 24 días

    Black Ops! For decades putting money into secrets development.. Starship just open the doors on the real cost..

  • technick
    technickHace 25 días

    Bob Kerman didn't survive

  • my drone life will
    my drone life willHace 25 días

    That was great I love the way you broke down each one of the cost

  • Ken D
    Ken DHace 26 días

    If it's Boeing I'm not going ... End of overrun!

  • Shiro Lee
    Shiro LeeHace 26 días

    Don't worry, SpaceX is giving all of them a run for their money and hopefully puts them out of business also.

  • george kane
    george kaneHace 26 días

    Let’s just take a moment to note that Apollo ran on computers less powerful than your cellphone

  • Wade Arendsee

    Wade Arendsee

    Hace 25 días

    The chips they sell you in the $5 USB chargers that negotiate the link are more powerful

  • PC_Screen


    Hace 26 días

    Found some hard data, the Apple A14 chip's neural engine that is in the iphone 12 is capable of 11tflops (11 trillion floating point operations per second), while the Apollo guidence computer was only capable of 12,425 flops, making the A14 898 million times faster. It's also 68750x faster than the first ever super computer from 1976

  • PC_Screen


    Hace 26 días

    The computers on apollo were way, way, way less powerful than any cellphone, by an order of 1 million times. For instance, they operated the apollo missions with only 72kb of total memory and 4kb of ram. A middle range phone may have 256gb of flash memory and 8gb of ram, literally over a million times more data can be stored and accessed at once than back then. The CPU of the Apollo computers operated at a austonding clock speed of... 0.04Mhz, where as many phones go above 2Ghz(or 2000Mhz) on 8 or more cores. This is deceptive though, since modern cpu architectures mean each individual cycle carries a massive amount more instructions, around 10 times more, the difference is much larger than it seems. Modern phones also have gpus that have more much more compute than the cpu for parallel tasks. Computers have come a massive way forward, the computers on apollo aren't even comparable to a modern calculator, the TI-73 has a clock speed 300x higher than the apollo guidence computer. A phone charger has more computing power. The fact they did what they did with such limited hardware is what's impressive about it, but back then even the concept of things like 3d modelling was still years away

  • firefly4f4
    firefly4f4Hace 26 días

    I'm curious now. Now that the Starship lander has been chosen, and that will require refueling in LEO, you could technically do away with Orion all together. Get Starship into LEO, refuel it, launch the crew on a Dragon*, load them onto Starship, and send the whole thing back to the moon. Then on return launch the next crew, swap crews between Dragon and Starship, the Dragon returns to Earth, etc. You can have gateway there if you want, but why always use another vehicle if Starship is going to have to do the loop anyway? * Could be any IDA-capable craft, even a crew Starship.

  • Fractal Paradox
    Fractal ParadoxHace 26 días


  • Crasy Fingers
    Crasy FingersHace 27 días

    i think SLS is a step backwards, it's more expensive and less capable than starship, they should just take all the SLS fundings and give it to spaceX

  • Ice "T"esla
    Ice "T"eslaHace 27 días

    Yes. Yes it will

  • Alisio Ardiona
    Alisio ArdionaHace 27 días

    43:23 Well done Spacex for getting the Human Landing System contract ! Turns out the developpement will cost only 2.9B, not 17.5B as you predicted since Spacex pays half of it.

  • Everyday Astronaut

    Everyday Astronaut

    Hace 27 días

    Well that’s just for the initial phase of the contract. It’ll still be several billion more once in operation

  • Boots Whitlock
    Boots WhitlockHace 27 días

    Dragon transfer in LEO

  • Ambient Pedals
    Ambient PedalsHace 27 días

    For Artemis is Spacex building a starship that connects to the top of NASA’s rocket or NASA going to use Spacex Heavy Booster?

  • Alvian Choiri Apriliansyah

    Alvian Choiri Apriliansyah

    Hace 26 días

    SLS lower stage can't lift Starship to orbit

  • Nicholas Perry
    Nicholas PerryHace 27 días

    About those eye watering costs per unit and the value for money. Do you Americans know about cronyism yet? Order X-worth of something through a company not 'unknown' to the politician involved for 5X the value. Or place a contract for millions to a company owned by a Party supporter who uses the terms and conditions from a take-away food place, to provide emergency ferry cover if a Brexit deal fails to happen, which you are involved 'intimately' with and using a port (Ramsgate) that hadn't been used for years and where the dock equipment had been stripped to sell spares to other ports. PPE £1.3billion for nothing at all delivered. Harbour contingency plan at least £200million for nothing at all delivered. You're just playing at it. Fantastic video though and good work on the figures too.

  • Piotr D.
    Piotr D.Hace 27 días

    Artemis is already hot mess - my guess is that NASA simply wants to reinvigorate and whip back into shape the industry as a whole, under guise of largely unnecessary programme.

  • I am a ROKOT manson

    I am a ROKOT manson

    Hace 25 días

    How is it a mess, except for SLS and Orion of course, ?

  • Giantrevi 02
    Giantrevi 02Hace 28 días

    5:11 “you want your lunar lander to be as lightweight as possible”. SpaceX: “ I don’t think so”

  • emmm
    emmmHace 28 días

    Ah yes boeing. More interested in money than anything else. I'm surprised they got anything going at this point.

  • Tomas Gallo
    Tomas GalloHace 28 días

    Send astronauts to iss with dragons. Pick them up with space x lander and take them to moon. Pay me 1% of money I saved nasa. I'm rich now.

  • Cedrik Niehof

    Cedrik Niehof

    Hace 9 horas

    That’s what gateway is for. Launch from earth, dock with gateway while at earth ->moon-> transfer to surface with lunar starship

  • nikola georgiev
    nikola georgievHace 28 días

    You forgot to add! How much the astronauts are going to spend while on Mars? Are they going to use us dollars or euros while on Mars?

  • Secret Owl
    Secret OwlHace 28 días

    These space programs cost nothing; science driver programs generate a surplus in you economy, as opposed to war, which destroys everything, not to mention a demoralized society. So spend, spend , spend, the more you spend the more you get back... minimum $100 for every $1 spent.

  • Secret Owl

    Secret Owl

    Hace 28 días

    As long as you don't go backwards, like green energy, which gives you a negative energy flux density vs nuclear, cold fusion or helium 3 reactors. Remember, you have to have the element of a science driver of undiscovered new technologies.

  • Christoph Franzen
    Christoph FranzenHace 28 días

    GJ, thx

  • Seven Pearls
    Seven PearlsHace 29 días

    T-shirts can be ironed Tim !!

  • Marcus Underwood
    Marcus UnderwoodHace 29 días


  • Hamza Mahmood
    Hamza MahmoodHace 29 días

    And they've done it. This is mad!

  • Mgêquatro Likes
    Mgêquatro LikesHace 29 días

    you speak very fast, for those who are not fluent in english, you can’t understand anything, you can use a translator, but you don’t have time to read, we like your videos, but explanations are difficult, we are in brazil, spain, portugal mejico etc. .

  • William Hutton

    William Hutton

    Hace 4 días

    there are captions

  • Alex P

    Alex P

    Hace 27 días

    Start your own channel for your country if nobody is doing it now. Good way to do what you love and make lots of money

  • David Renaud
    David RenaudHace 29 días

    Your last statement that Starship will bring humans safely to the moon and back to earth is incorrect. The Starship is hired to land humans on the moon from the gateway and back to the gateway just like Crew Dragon does for the ISS. If SpaceX boost starships into orbit with fuel and only lands Super Heavy back on earth, then the program is mostly riding on Super Heavy making its landings like the other 1st stage landings. Scraping 5 tanker Starships without flaps is not a great issue. They're doing that anyway just trying to flip land.

  • blazze2k8
    blazze2k8Hace 29 días

    How do you get those custom space wrinkles in your shirt!?.. lol

  • Beau74
    Beau74Hace 29 días

    30:00 I assume that you meant 5% chance of mission FAILURE, not a 5% chance that the mission would be successful.

  • Beau74


    Hace 8 horas

    @Cedrik Niehof That's stupid, nobody plans to go to space unless they have prepared for success

  • Cedrik Niehof

    Cedrik Niehof

    Hace 9 horas

    No. 5% success.

  • Tsakeboya
    TsakeboyaHace 29 días

    Who's here after NASA chose starship?

  • Siddharth Prabhu
    Siddharth PrabhuHace 29 días

    Who's here after NASA awarded the lunar lander contract to SpaceX?

  • Til Merkan
    Til MerkanHace 29 días

    Glad to be the german guy. Can't rant about criminal space companys. We don't have a real space program at all. That is sad, too.

  • Cedrik Niehof

    Cedrik Niehof

    Hace 9 horas


  • Johansson Engineering Ltd
    Johansson Engineering LtdHace 29 días

    SLS is already obsolete. Wont be long before its phased out in the near future.

  • Ryan N
    Ryan NHace 29 días

    SPACEX WINS HLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Rebecca Stefan
    Rebecca StefanHace 29 días


  • lampar20
    lampar20Hace 29 días

    Space X won.

  • allan churm
    allan churmHace 29 días

    they have chosen spacex ......at long last someone in american goverment and NASA has made the right decision

  • Kapitananime
    KapitananimeHace 29 días

    5 STARSHIPS 4 tankers of the 5 and one lunar lander is the WORST IDEA i have ever seen.

  • Alvian Choiri Apriliansyah

    Alvian Choiri Apriliansyah

    Hace 29 días

    Good thing those tankers aren't one use

  • Marvson Allan
    Marvson AllanHace 29 días

    In the end they shockingly chose starship...

  • cilrvo
    cilrvoHace un mes

    I’m proud that My daughter Artemis by coincidence was born 2018 just 2 months before introducing Artemis program by NASA.

  • Raymond Jordan
    Raymond JordanHace un mes

    You ask the questions that all us space nerds have been asking for years but so much more succinctly. According to news reports today NASA chose SpaceX for the Artemus program to land humans on the moon. How does that change the vision?

  • Joao Victor Lima
    Joao Victor LimaHace un mes

    One question that I've not yet been able to get a straight answer for is why does the SLS not have an extra stage? If that core stage was instead 2 smaller stages, would it not significantly help with payload capacity? Is it because they wanted to remove a staging event for safety reasons? Is the mass of an extra stage prohibitively high?

  • Joao Victor Lima

    Joao Victor Lima

    Hace 29 días

    @Indra Gunawan extra complexity I get, but the Nasa contracting system is not great with cost and time management anyways, so I doubt it would increase that much plus you could then use RP1 engines for the first stage which gives better trust and takes up less volume... maybe a constellation of Merlins. Save the expensive but efficient RS-25s for the second stage. Less dead weight to orbit as well. This may also remove the need to have the exploration upper stage with 4 RL-10s which are ridiculously expensive engines. I still think the main reason is because of the legislated use of shuttle components and the simplicity of removing a staging event.

  • Indra Gunawan

    Indra Gunawan

    Hace un mes

    extra stage = extra engines = extra complexity = extra time = extra cost.

  • SolventTrap dot com
    SolventTrap dot comHace un mes

    Monster video is best video.

  • Aaditya
    AadityaHace un mes

    Anyone here after spacex won the lander contract?

  • JVIPER88


    Hace 10 días

    I'm here after the contract got suspended.

  • The Expositor the Merely Mediocre

    The Expositor the Merely Mediocre

    Hace 29 días

    I'm just hanging out happily waiting to see Tim's next monster video breaking down the decision to go with SpaceX. Give him time and he'll deliver another amazing vid.

  • Peter Zhou
    Peter ZhouHace un mes

    Congrats to SpaceX for winning the contract for the lunar lander!

  • Kerry Freeman

    Kerry Freeman

    Hace 10 días

    @stuff As I said to BSWM above: Laugh all you want, I'm wholly convinced that if you're a SpaceX supporter you've never even passed a basic math and science course. Only a single Starship launch out of seventeen total, has landed successfully without exploding. That's not a good ratio of success to failure. If you knew basic math, you'd know this. Five out of six Falcon Nine rockets explode upon landing. That's not a good ratio of success to failure. If you took basic math, you'd know this. None of SpaceX's rockets have a good ratio of success to failure. If you took basic math you'd know this. SpaceX is a failure. Not a success story. Anyone who says otherwise is either blind, or stupid.

  • stuff


    Hace 10 días

    @Kerry Freeman lol

  • Kerry Freeman

    Kerry Freeman

    Hace 11 días

    @BSWM Laugh all you want, I'm wholly convinced that if you're a SpaceX supporter you've never even passed a basic math and science course. Only a single Starship launch out of seventeen total, has landed successfully without exploding. That's not a good ratio of success. If you knew basic math, you'd know this. Five out of six Falcon Nine rockets explode upon landing. That's not a good ration of success. If you took basic math, you'd know this. Also, @Lorenzo_Van_Erven: If anything that goes to prove that NASA is the only logical choice when it comes to manned space launches. They had a five percent chance of making it. And they made it, not once but sixteen times, none of which failed. Starship hasn't made it once. Nor will it ever.

  • BSWM


    Hace 11 días

    @Kerry Freeman lol

  • BSWM


    Hace 11 días

    @Kerry Freeman lol

  • Goochies Paranormal sessions
    Goochies Paranormal sessionsHace un mes

    50p per week is My honest offer

  • Shobhit Mittal
    Shobhit MittalHace un mes

    congrats to spacex for winning the contract for lunar human lander

  • Different 1
    Different 1Hace un mes

    china went back to the moon so wtf just ask them

  • The Interfaith Shepherd
    The Interfaith ShepherdHace un mes

    Yes! This is a really, really meaty and excellent video!! It shows one small part of how incredibly complicated getting a person to the moon is. 5% chance of success ... that is probably a realistic number (optimistically) for all missions at our current level of technology. "Use a felt pen to ensure you can come back to Earth." New safety: 'better welds', 'solar panels', "better computers" (famous last words -- for anyone who's made a living as a software developer), 'better shields', 'better seats'. Doesn't seem ANY safer to me...sounds more complicated. To me, the rocket engines are the least reliable of all the critical items. Also, there's less money being spent. I really feel that going on these trips to the moon are very, very risky. If indeed the chance of success is 5%, for us nerds out there...one needs to roll a 20 on a 20 sided dice. Is that right? Odds 20:1! Not for me!! One thing not discussed much are the rescue missions. What rescue missions? Exactly...nobody talks about them. But, it WILL happen that rescue missions will be required...how will it be done and why is nobody talking about it? That said, I hope it all goes perfectly.

  • N1ght0wl Techno
    N1ght0wl TechnoHace un mes

    launching big rockets to place humans on the moon is a stupid idea.. launchig big rockets to put 2 orbital refuel stations is not. Then use smaller lighter vehicles for moon and earth. earth to orbit use a space plane.

  • Alvian Choiri Apriliansyah

    Alvian Choiri Apriliansyah

    Hace un mes

    Developing a bunch of completely different vehicles isn't exactly a good strategy

  • Shane Lee
    Shane LeeHace un mes

    Starship is the right way to do a moon mission

  • Alvian Choiri Apriliansyah

    Alvian Choiri Apriliansyah

    Hace un mes

    And NASA agrees :)

  • Shane Lee
    Shane LeeHace un mes

    Of course NASA is going in the wrong direction. They are a government run shitocracy.

  • Empire526907
    Empire526907Hace un mes

    2:24 Well, I guess I'm watching part 2 before part 1... Thanks ESpast.

  • Marco Solo
    Marco SoloHace un mes

    Lets get a Star Coffin to land with out exploding before you start talking about all this other futuristic crap!

  • dan smith
    dan smithHace un mes

    you bleed the gov for money thats how nothing new been going on from day one

  • Anthony Mark
    Anthony MarkHace un mes

    Honestly, how could anyone give this video a thumbs down? Brilliant video once again.

  • poop orange
    poop orangeHace un mes

    Invest in space and you will be rewarded.

  • Aaro Heikkinen
    Aaro HeikkinenHace un mes

    So Tim you want kill Artemis because it costs something.

  • Denny Rice
    Denny RiceHace un mes

    NASA can’t even get a mini helicopter to fly on Mars in 2021, what makes anyone think they can re-create the success of the Apollo project...😂

  • William Hutton

    William Hutton

    Hace 4 días


  • Sheila davis
    Sheila davisHace un mes

    I’m only 2 thirds in but stop making this sound so expensive and what we will get. There are lots of people who use this as ammunition against space. Instead of realizing how much bang for the buck we get. Compare it to the 80 billion a year minimum wasted on an over bloated military! Not to mention the billions if not trillions spent on black projects that answer to no one. I think money spent on discovery instead of destruction is money well spent. Especially if the main goal is permanent base etc on the moon. Not to mention if the goal is Mars. The problem is these overbloated contractors who again are used to ripping us off on military contracts and over runs with endless military budgets. I was born in mar.of 69 and my mom set me up as a baby in front of the tv and literally remember the last mission. I thought we would have the choice to live on the moon when I was an adult. Now it’s been 50yrs and I just want to see us go back before people of my generation start dropping off. You think you’ve been waiting along time. Keep fighting because my generation has been in limbo for 50yrs...

  • steven
    stevenHace un mes

    As a rule I do not subscribe to any channel; notifications are invasive. That said, I love your work. ☺

  • Bop


    Hace un mes

    Are you unaware you can just disable notifications?

  • Dioptra obscura
    Dioptra obscuraHace un mes


  • William Rice
    William RiceHace un mes

    So, you're saying that the building at ksc that houses a Saturn V, a command module, and a LEM, contains 7.2 billion dollars worth of metal objects? That's not even counting the other artifacts like the rover, space suits, or the moon rock!

  • William Rice

    William Rice

    Hace un mes

    That should make that building #4 on the list of most expensive buildings in history.

  • M. F.
    M. F.Hace un mes

    You are a true Space nerd. Thank you for the video.

    THENOOSCOPERHace un mes

    I don't believe the 5% thing

  • O.o.f Rocketry
    O.o.f RocketryHace un mes

    How did you get those rocket models behind you like the new shepard