Artemis II, Apollo, and the Physics of Going Back to the Moon

Intro — Artemis II + why we’re doing this episode

0:00Hello internet. This is your captain speaking Lester Narre joined as always by my co-host and our resident PhD Krishna Chowdery.

The “moon landing debunker” framing

0:10We are traveling this week and so we're going to have a special deep dive episode. If you couldn't already tell, it's about the Aremis 2 mission that's coming up. This should be coming up right before the launch window which starts on February 6th. We're going to talk about the Aremis 2 program, the Artemis program generally, why it's different from Apollo. Uh we're going to do some debunking of moonlanding myths and maybe a little popery of other stuff in there as well. You are going to learn something today because this is from first principles. [music]

1:00>> [music] >> So, it's been more than half a century, 50 years since we've gone to the moon. The final Apollo mission was Apollo 17. We had a moon buggy. We had a car on the moon that we were driving around. It was amazing. And now the United States through the NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration, we have chosen to go back. >> Right. So I wanted to take this opportunity because Artemis 2 is coming up. The launch window is February 2nd. Sorry, February 6th is when it opens up. I wanted to take this opportunity to talk about some of the differences between the Aremis missions and the Apollo missions. And then, you know,

1:42towards the end of the episode, maybe we'll go into something that I never wanted to do, but I guess we're doing, is debunking these absurd moon conspiracy myths.

JFK, the Space Race, and the moving finish line

1:54Let's get started with 1961, President JFK. John F. Kennedy commits the United States to go to the moon in a congressional address. And in 1962 he actually gives a speech at Rice University which is arguably more famous because he's the one who say he's the one who says you know but why some say the moon and they may well ask why climb the highest mountain why 35 years ago fly the Atlantic and he's talking about Charles Lindberg who flew the Atlantic from the United States all the way to Paris and then he he inserts a joke on his own. He says, "Why does Rice play Texas?" And he he's at Rice Stadium and

2:35that gives a that gets a huge up uproar. And he uses that uproar to he was a brilliant orator, you know, and he uses that sort of momentum to be like, "We choose to go to the moon. >> We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." >> That's my best uh Boston accent. >> That was quite good. >> But in that Yeah. But in that like statement there, I mean it's incredibly inspir inspirational. >> Yeah.

Apollo vs Artemis: what changed (and why it’s harder now)

3:07>> But in that statement, he actually gives a clue as to why we're doing that in the first place, which is we want to make it so hard that the Soviets can't catch up. At the time, there was a Cold War sprint, right? The Soviets had already beaten us with Sputnik. Yuri Gagarin was on the cover of Time magazine with a hammer and sickle. And we wanted to make the finish line so far away that everyone who was playing this race, the space race, had to start over from scratch. And so we're like, we're going to go to the moon. Now, Yuri Gagarin and the Mercury astronauts, they just went into Earth orbit, right? That's about like 100 km to like 200, 300, 500 km.

3:49Now we're doing hundreds of thousands of kilome. The moon is 380 km away. That's requires a whole new set of technology, a whole new paradigm shift in how we even approach the space problem. We got to land someone, we got to bring them back. >> We got to do all these things, right? >> And so the idea was we just make this the finish line in classic American fashion. If we lost, we're just like, "No, no, it's not over. >> Yeah, it's it's over there." >> Yeah. Yeah. What are you talking about? It's over there. Like Like we're still running right? And that's sort of the crucible in which Apollo was born. Right. Right. Now

4:30Apollo [snorts] was a unateral US effort. US astronauts, US technology, US money. >> Mhm. >> Everything was American. And I think an important point just to punctuate that is in an effort to win the Cold War race, we were willing at the time to do everything. >> Yeah. >> Put the money, recruit the resources, the talent to execute on it. >> Yeah. >> We don't live in that world anymore. >> Exactly. Exactly. And so Apollo was this just American all-American model. Artemis is very different. It's an international effort. There's this thing

5:10called the Artemis Accord. 60 countries have signed it. It's a peaceful, transparent, and sustainable space exploration treaty that's saying, you know, we're not going to we're not going to just expend resources. It's going to be sustainable. It's going to be cooperative. But all of these countries are sort of on the Western block. >> It's NATO plus allies, right? And there is still kind of a space race. There is kind of a multi-polar competition. China is talking about landing tyonauts. That's what they call their astronauts.

Artemis Accords + new space geopolitics

5:44>> They're planning to land their tyonauts by the 2030s. >> Mhm. >> Russia is colluding with China, if that's what you can call >> collusion. [laughter] Yeah. Yeah. So, just like we're colluding with like 60 other countries, the two of them are, you know, colluding with themselves. >> And it's a very different ballgame now, right? >> One of our crew that's going on Artemis 2 is Canadian. That just shows just how different Artemis is from Apollo. Apollo is just all American astronauts that are like Air Force pilots or Navy pilots. Now we've got a literal Canadian. >> Yeah. >> Who's who's who's on the mission. I >> I what's interesting the timing which

6:24they could never have expected because Artemis has been planning this for such a long period of time. >> The geopolitical context in which the launch is happening is interesting. >> Yeah. Yeah. because the prime minister of Canada just came out at the World Economic Forum and gave a speech effectively, >> you know, they're calling it the great divorce. >> Yeah. >> Uh you know, from a political social context in terms of Canada no longer viewing the United States as a reliable partner right? >> And sort of encouraging the EU as a block >> to think about what the future looks like uh with an unreliable partner in the US. Yeah.

7:12>> There's some things, you know, that are changing that in recent memory, but historically that has been uh apolitical. >> Yeah. >> And everyone recognizes the value of all of us working together because the the the fruits of that are just so beneficial to everybody. >> Yeah. But this is is happening in a geopolitical environment that is becoming more contentious very not similar to the cold war era but it's just very it is not a stable geopolitical context in which this is happening but it is great that the collaboration in this is still going forth despite >> the geopolitical tensions. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think I think you make a

7:53very good point. You know, space is off Earth by definition, right? And it it makes you think, okay, Earth is like this rock [laughter] and then and then there's another rock that >> very few humans have been on. Fine. It's all been American. But >> it's we're just on this rock, right? And the great thing about the Artemis Accords and the Artemis program to me is that it's one part of American geopolitical policy that has kept that philosophy. >> Yes. >> You know, >> I I I really like that. >> Mhm. >> So Apollo, it was this flag in the dust

8:35model, not like Artemis, right? flag in the dust. Meaning like you just put a you plant a American flag on the moon and it's designed to demonstrate the superiority of our liberal democracy that's embedded in capitalism over Soviet communism. It's an ideological battle that we're trying to win. It's technological at the end of the day, but the reason why we're spending all that money is because of ideology. Right. >> Right. And that's very important. And Artemis is really a paradigm shift towards permanence and sustainability. Apollo was we get there, we plant the flag, we come back. >> No repeatability necessarily like like it was it wasn't the core function. It's the destination was the goal, not the

9:15journey. >> Yes. Yeah. And in an Artemis, we're trying to get there and we're trying to really establish a permanent presence, right? President Donald Trump issued an executive order um that called to begin

From flags to permanence: bases, infrastructure, and power on the Moon

9:27construction of a base in 2030 and also have a nuclear reactor be ready to launch towards the lunar surface by 2030. And NASA administrator Jared Isaacman >> purported that sentiment, right? And this is all to prepare us to go to Mars because we want a permanent base on the moon. And that way from moon we can sort of piggyback and go to Mars. We can establish a permanent base on the moon. We can understand what it is like to live on another celestial body without oxygen, without all of the comforts of the Earth's atmosphere and all of the hard things. If we can do that, you know, in our local neighborhood, then we

10:08can go to Mars, which is a year away. Best case scenario, >> it becomes this way station. It's like a training ground and a way station. >> Yes. >> Or way point rather where like >> you can do a whole especially I'm not saying that we we're there yet but there are a bunch of TV shows that talk about how there's all the H3 that's below the surface of the moon and that's very very fuel efficient and if we can figure out how to mine that >> um then again it becomes basically a refueling point on the journey to Mars. >> Mars. Yeah. Exactly. And in the Apollo paradigm, it was urgency driven as you said, right? We we got to we got to win. And so 2.3% of the total federal budget

10:50was given to NASA >> to make this happen. That's a lot. >> That's a lot. >> That's a lot. Okay. I love science and I love technology, but 2.3% is a lot. Now, if you put that in the context of how much we spend on the military, perhaps it's not a lot, but I I I would say two 2.3% is is quite a bit, right? But it's a totally different paradigm. With Artemis, you've got this space economy and the goal is to have a sustained presence, right? So, you've got this lunar getaway, you've got insitu resource utilization, that thing that you were talking about where we utilize the resources of the moon. And we're

11:30partnering with agencies that are commercial. For example, SpaceX, the Starship human landing system. The way we're going to land on the moon is currently contracted to SpaceX. Right now, this is the same as before. Um, Grumman, which is the predecessor of Northrup Grman, was actually involved in creating the lunar lander. So, this is not different, but now with Artemis, it's a completely different scale. >> I will just make a quick note. If you are a fan of Elon Musk and you are not a believer in the moonlanding, you should talk to Elon Musk because he's clearly a believer in the moonlanding and he got the contract to do it again. >> Yeah. >> And so I'm just trying to put two and two together here. The math the math

12:11needs to equal. >> Yeah. And if we were to if we were to stay on the topic of SpaceX and Elon Musk, there's a side note. So, um, NASA administrator Sean Duffy last year actually reopened the human landing system contract because the aerospace safety advisory panel is warning that SpaceX's Starship human landing system is going to be years late. >> Okay. He was then fired >> and then he was replaced by Jar Jared Isaacman who's a billionaire commercial astronaut. Um, neither the demonstration nor the design certification review, which was supposed to happen in the summer of this past year, has happened.

12:53And there's not really any information about what the status of that human landing system is. But it's like it's quite urgent because China says they're going to get there by 2030, >> right? >> We're cutting it quite close. >> Yes. you know, >> and we know that they are putting all the resources to bear to accomplish the goal. Yeah. >> Just given their system and how it's structured, it's t, you know, they can they want something to happen, >> it happens. >> It happens, right? Because they just say what happens >> and then >> and then it happens, >> right? Um, so with all that in mind, now we're here with Artemis 2, right? This is the critical crude validation flight,

13:36the Artemis 2 rocket, which we have here that Lester has painstakingly made [laughter] with Lego blocks. >> Shout out LEGO. >> Lego. If you want to sponsor the show, you know we're here. [laughter] >> Yeah. Well, he made this thing and this thing is now currently sitting on the launchpad at Kennedy Space Flight Center in Florida, >> which we touched on in our rundown on the last episode. >> Yep. Yeah. Yeah. And so now, as of the publishing of this episode, it should still be there. February 6th is when the window opens up. And fingers crossed. And just just before we get to the rundown, we're going to break this up into two parts. I I want to just zoom in

14:18on this launch window concept because you know some of the reactions going be oh this are the studios not ready for the production [laughter] or like oh of course that it's going to get delayed you know and I think helping understand the idea that when we have a launch window right like we are both you know we're spinning and in orbit of the sun and so is everything else and so >> when you talk about launch windows it's about >> how your flight trajectory is going to align with the normal movement of the planetary bodies around us >> such that we, >> you know, we have a certain amount of fuel. We have everything is very precise. >> Everything is very precise. Yeah. >> So there's there's only like a few paths to getting there based on what we've

14:59built to get there. >> Exactly. And it depends on what we want to do with the moon. Right. We're not landing on the moon with Artemis 2, but if we want certain spaces on the moon to be lit up, we need to time it with the phases of the moon. >> Right. >> Right. And so that's why the launch window is like early February and then it's late February and March because the lunar month is 29 days and we need to >> you can't just go at a random time. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Yes. It's not it's not it's not the subway where it's just like it's constantly running. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That there are the dynamics that and I just wanted to make sure we touched on that briefly because >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Good. Good. >> For folks who might not understand the concept of a launch window, that's kind of where it comes from. Before we get

The Rundown begins

15:40back to continuing the coverage of the main story, many of you have loved the rundown. It's a quick overview of other stories we can't go so much into depth on because there's only so much time in a day. So, we just hit some highlights of what's going on. That's current, recent, breaking, and frontier research. Our first story in the rundown today is rock art from at least 67,000 years ago in Sul Sulawesi which is this is now combination of multiple uh organizations we have Griffith University, Southern Cross University and others published in nature >> um and this is about the outline of a hand made with red pigment on a cave in

16:22Indonesia that's at least 67,000 years old and may be the world's oldest rock art. >> Yeah. >> According to to uh recent studies. >> Yeah. This is incredible. It's it's supposed to be on the lost continent of Sulowesi. Okay. So, back before the ice ages when or during the ice ages, I

Rundown — 50k-year-old Sulawesi cave art

16:42guess when all of the water of the world was sequestered into glaciers, the sea level was lower. And so, Indonesia, Papa New Guinea, and Australia were a continuous land mass called Sulaweesi. It's a lost continent, so to speak. And to date, what they've done is they've dated the mineral crusts that form on top of these paintings because, you know, you could ask like, how do you know that this thing is 68,000 >> years old? Well, you what you can do is you can take the cave paintings and what ends up happening is there's this stuff called cave popcorn that shows up on top of the on top of the cave paintings

17:23>> that >> is at least as old as the cave

Rundown — elevation-dependent warming

17:27paintings, right? Because the cave paintings formed and then the and then this mineral deposit formed. So, we can date the mineral deposit and using radiocarbon and other kinds of radioactive dating, we can say that this stuff was at least 60,000 67,000 years old. Right. >> Right. And this puts it as older than the cave paintings in um what's it called? Lascals. >> Yeah. >> Lascals, [laughter] France, which we we mentioned in the previous Yes. >> episode. again. I'm pretty sure that's how it's pronounced. >> In the previous episode, [laughter] we did uh an ancient math story uh uh from from Mesopotamia.

18:08>> Yeah. And we were talking about art in the ancient >> past in ancient past. And uh >> Las came up. [laughter] That's all I'm saying. Okay. So, jokes aside though, one of the one of the coolest things that I found about this story was that in the same cave, they also had recent paintings from about 3,000 to 4,000 years ago. Ah, >> which I find kind of incredible. Like imagine, you know, you're going back to a cave as human beings. You're going back to a cave that has been this repository of art for 60,000 years. >> Isn't that kind of cool? It's >> to be those human beings to be like I go back and like those handprints were 60,000 years ago.

18:49>> Yeah. Yeah. >> I don't know. I think I think that's that's that's really cool. >> The human story is so beautiful. >> Yeah, it really is. I like that. Our story number two is about climate change and this concept of elevation dependent climate change in mountain environments. This is coming out of the University of Portsmouth in the UK, Montana Technological University, a Montana State University and the Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate National Research Council in Torino, Italy, published in Nature, Earth, and Environment. The summary here is that mountain regions

19:31show rapid environmental change under anthropogenic warming. The rates of these changes are often stratified by elevation leading to elevation dependent climate change or EDCC. Yeah. And this is something that I've noticed. I go to the Himalayas almost every year, maybe every other year, and you can literally kind of see the snow line decreasing. Okay. >> They analyzed data from 1980 to 2020, and they found that the mountains are actually warming 0.2 2° C faster >> than the land plains >> and snowfall is increasingly being replaced by rain. I mean, anecdotally,

20:13you saw this when you went to Big Bear right outside Los Angeles. >> Literally just experienced this, which is like it's January. Um, and normally there's plenty of snow on the ground and it was I'd never se I'd never seen the ground. >> Yeah. Yeah. And for context, there was a lot of precipitation in Southern California. Now, obviously this is anecdotal and we don't want to conflate weather versus climate. But if you look at the gradual trend, this is what they're arguing, correct? From 1980 to 2020, >> snowfall is being replaced by rain. Okay? And that means more flooding.

Rundown — dogs and human vocabulary

20:50Pakistan had some really bad flooding that killed 1,000 people this past summer. >> It's only going to get worse. And mountain regions are really critical for a lot of human population. Billions of people rely on mountains for their source of water. And if it's just going to rain instead of being sequestered into ice, that then gradually, >> right, >> becomes water, that's going to be huge for >> climate catastrophe. You know, >> it does like just into it. It does make if you have the whole concept in your head of like heat rises when you're in a house and your your attic is hotter than the basement, >> it's like okay well like at higher elevations >> Yeah. >> it make it

21:30>> Yeah. the difference is going to be bigger. Yes, >> at those higher elevations. >> So that that that does make sense. >> Um for a lighter story that is not as existential as >> elevation dependent climate change >> is a story that was actually published in the New York Times. We love to see when science makes it to the front pages of mainstream media. In this case, it's about dogs building their vocabulary like toddlers. And so this is something that like makes total sense. >> Yeah. Anyone who's at a dog. >> And so the the summary on this, this was in science. Children as young as 18

22:10months can acquire novel words by overhearing third-p partyy interactions. Don't be nosy. Demonstrating similar learning processes in nonhuman species would indicate that social cognitive skills supporting this process are not exclusive exclusively human but may have evolved or can develop in other species offering valuable insights into the origin of language related cognition. We're not so special after all. Yeah. And what I really like this about this story is like how they did that experiment. So what they looked at was particular types of dogs. They actually found that hurting dogs have a particular knack for this. Border cal

22:52border collies, Australian shepherds. What they did was they said, "Okay, we're going to have the human owners toss a toy back and forth while the dog is just monitoring the situation." Okay? So there's no reward based learning. >> There's no like, "Oh, here's a treat when you associate this toy with a certain name." Instead, the humans are going back and forth with this toy, and they refer to it multiple times in the conversation. So, they're like, "This is stingray. Give me the stingray." "Oh, do you want the stingray? I'll take the stingray." And the dog is just sort of passively observing. And then later on, they test the the dog. They're like, "Bring me stingray." 80% of the time, these dogs, they they tested 10 dogs.

23:3480% of the time it came back with the correct >> toy, which is way out of >> statistical noise, you know, and >> they had a control with 10 other dogs that I guess didn't show this kind of aptitude >> and they were at baseline. >> Mhm. >> And I particularly like this because I had my family dog, she was a corgi. She would be able to do exactly this. And we never taught her with reward-based learning because my dad is like philosophically against reward-based learning. Um, so you know, we would just like be talking in Orya and Hindi and English and she understood all three

24:15languages. And when I I remember once I I was like really surprised. I I would tell her like bring me this toy in Odia and she would bring it and exactly that toy. >> And once she actually brought the wrong toy and I said no, no, no, not that one. I said this one. She went back and then she brought the right one. It was like I was like, "Wow." But it's all passive learning, >> right? >> You know, very cool. >> Yes. As uh someone who has three dogs, uh my lived experience >> Yeah. >> maps on to this except for one dog who not doesn't have all the marbles upstairs, but that's >> Yeah, he's part of the control group. >> He's part of the control group. >> Yeah, [laughter] correct. He's part of the control group. >> Um I always love a dog story. all the

24:57animal stories. You guys seem to love the animal stories and so we will continue try to touch on them as we can. The last story in the rundown is about life's chemistry is the beginnings of life's chemistry and how it may have began in the cold darkness of space. This is out of Arus University in Denmark published in Nature Astronomy. New experiments reveal that protein precursors can form naturally in deep space under extreme extreme cold and radiation. Scientists found that simple amino acid bonds and peptides on interstellar dust long before stars and planet exists. The ch

Rundown — peptide bonds in deep space

25:37this challenges the idea that complex life and chemistry only happens >> on planets. It also boosts the odds that life friendly ingredients are widespread across the universe. And for those of you who know me, you know my reaction to that is them aliens and they are out there. >> They are out there and apparently they're out in deep space. >> In deep space, >> right? This is a pretty pretty cool study. They recreated the conditions of the interstellar medium in the lab. Now that's first of all incredibly hard to do. You have to maintain a very low vacuum. You have to have extremely high energy particles because you know in the interstellar dust you've got low density but you also have like particles that are like whizzing back and forth at near

26:18the speed of light. So what they did was they simulated cosmic rays using particles from an accelerator Hun Ren atomi in Hungary and they had a little compartment that was close to the conditions of interstellar media. And we already know that amino acids like glycine can form in the interstellar medium. But what these guys wanted to do was figure out can we have complex peptide bonds meaning amino acid with another amino acid with another amino acid together to create a kind of you know protein but a smaller version of a protein. So they could form these peptides and the implications are immense, right? Because

26:58>> this means that this is a process that can happen anywhere in the interstellar medium, right? So if you have exoplanets all over the place, when the exoplanet forms, you could have >> stuff in the interstellar medium that has already created complex molecules that are the precursors for life that then get deposited on the exoplanets and then perhaps life is even more abundant than we thought. I mean, right now we think it's just on Earth, but this kind of research lends credibility to the idea that maybe life, just simple life, is not all that rare. The the ingredients necessary for simple life.

27:38Previously, it's like it has to be water rich, oxygen rich, all these variables needed to be true. >> Yeah. >> In order for us to see the the ingredients, not even life like just the ingredients. >> Ingredients. Yeah. Now it's like, okay, well actually these ingredients can formulate in a a much much larger larger surface area than before. >> Yeah. >> So, who knows? I I thought that was a pretty cool story. >> Very good. Very good. And we're going to space with Artemis 2, which we will go back to our main story to continue. So

Back to the Moon: Artemis II mission architecture

28:14getting back into the Aremis 2 mission, I want to talk about the mission architecture, some of the orbital mechanics and the flight profile. Okay, so the space launch system, which we have beautifully recreated here in Legos, it uses a lot of spare shuttle parts. And there's a photo of me in Huntsville, Alabama. Actually, when I first moved from India to America, I settled in Huntsville, Alabama with my family for about a year because my dad was working at Marshall Space Flight Center as a solar physicist. And what you notice immediately is that the space shuttle's architecture is very similar to the

28:56Aremis 2 architecture, right? It's got this orange central part and then these solid rocket boosters on the two sides, right? And that is not a mistake. What they really did was use a lot of the spare shuttle parts to make the space launch system. This SLS, right? The launch vehicle is something called the SLS block one. It's got a liftoff thrust of about 8.8 million lbf pounds per I don't know what the f is actually. I should probably know that. But it exceeds the Saturn 5 really by 15%. The Saturn 5's thrust was only 7.5 million pounds.

29:36>> Yeah. Yes. >> This thing is 8.8 million. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, it's it's exceeding it by 15%. >> Now, you might be asking like, why is the rocket still so big? That's something that I ask because it's like it's like we we've had 50 years >> and the rocket is still so big. >> Yes. >> What gives? And why more thrust? It actually has less payload. Mhm. >> It's got more thrust, but it's got less payload, >> meaning it can carry less stuff. >> It can carry less stuff. So, I I was I was quite >> confused. Perplexed. Yes. By that by that um by

30:16that number. >> So, here's the idea. >> First of all, the reason why the rocket is so big is because of the rocket equation. Okay? At the end of the day, if you want to like leave the earth, you gota push on something. >> Newton's third law. >> Newton's laws are the laws of the universe, right? Inertia is a thing. And so, in order to you can't just like create electricity really efficiently and then leave. You literally have to expend material in one direction to push away in order for your rocket to leave. >> Mhm. And the amount of material is kind

30:58of a non-negotiable thing if you want to put a giant electronic spacecraft into higher Earth orbit and then go all the way to the moon. >> Okay, so that's one of the reasons why it's about the same scale as the Saturn 5 rocket and why the Starship, the big Starship are about the same size, right? It's because you got to you got to leave enough material to get out there. And the idea is the [clears throat] space is being taken up by primarily fuel >> because that fuel is the thing you're push using to expend to give you the thrust to counteract Earth's gravity to be able to leave. >> Yeah. >> You know, to be able to have enough momentum to get out

31:39>> to get out. Yeah. Exactly. And so, so that's the reason why it's about the same size. Okay. Now, let's get into the why the less payload. The short answer is that the Saturn 5 was actually a three-stage rocket. There was stage one, stage two, stage three. >> And with this three-stage rocket, what you can do is you can get out >> and then you can throw away the heavy things. >> Mhm. >> And keep going >> cuz you have that second stage. >> Yeah. That second stage is not propelling the third stage's mass. >> Yeah. >> You know what I mean? Yep. Yep. Yep. >> But the SLS is a two-stage rocket. >> Got it. >> Okay. There's the first stage which is from here to here >> and the solid rocket boosters and then

32:20the second stage is all the way here. Right. And what that means is with the with the Saturn 5 the first stage only took about 2.5 minutes >> gets out of the Earth's atmosphere and then it leaves. This thing sticks around for 8.5 minutes. >> Oh, that's significantly longer, >> right? >> Yeah. >> So the whole time it's hauling >> all of the >> Yes. sort of mass that isn't really doing anything. >> Right. Right. Right. Right. >> Now, the Saturn 5 dropped its dead weight, its empty tanks early and often. Right. While the SLS carries its massive empty orange core stage, which is this guy. >> Yes. >> All the way to the top.

33:01>> That makes sense, >> right? >> That makes sense. >> Now, when it comes to engines, the engines on the bottom here, right? The Saturn 5 used kerosene which is our hydrocarbon. So carbon with a bunch of hydrogen bonds. Those bonds are very energetic. Meaning that per gram kerosene has a lot more chemical energy. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> The SLS uses hydrogen and oxygen. >> I see. >> Okay. It's just H2 and O2. Now, hydrogen is lighter, which means that it'll have a higher exhaust velocity. When it gets out of the rocket, it's going to be moving faster because it's lighter. But at the same time,

33:42>> it's lighter, so you need more of it. The density is lower, right? So, you need a massive sort of thing to hold all that hydrogen. And when you have a two-stage rocket and you're going all the way up, that's a lot of drag. That's a lot of friction that you have to account for. So all of that accounts for this lower weight that I can put on Earth orbit and all the way to the moon. >> The idea is because you need more space for the fuel which is this hydrogen oxygen mix as opposed to uh kerosene and liquid O2. And because you need more of that fuel and you're not dropping stages like it's not a three-stage system, so

34:22you're not able to let go of that dead weight earlier. >> Yeah. you fundamentally have more space

SLS / Saturn V comparisons + the rocket equation intuition

34:28taking up taken up by fuel which means less space for a payload even though you're accomplishing the same objective and it's because of these architectural structural choices. >> Exly. Yeah. And and then one could ask like okay why are we doing this architectural choice? >> Yes. >> Well um there's something called the Senate launch system. >> Okay. >> Okay. And that's basically the idea that like you got to get through the US Senate, which is two senators per state. So all the states got to be happy. So you've got the NASA centers all over the country. There's three in California, the Ames Research Center, the Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards Air Force Base. Yes. >> Up in the high desert. And then you've

35:10got JPL in Pasadena. You've also got in Louisiana the >> assembly that actually makes that orange part. You've got the Kennedy Space Flight Center. You've got Goddard and all these other things in the eastern seabboard. On top of that, all 50 states are actually partners with Artemis in the sense that there is a component on Artemis that comes from each of the 50 states. >> The nuts and bolts come from Delaware and there's like tubing that comes from some random company in California and all this other stuff. But they they've done a really good job to sort of like make this like an American. Yes. >> Like because you know Artemis is as we said with the Artemis Accords, it's like

35:51this international collaboration. But >> it's >> we're in America. You got to make everyone happy. And the Senate launch system has made sure that all 50 states have a stake >> in this mission. >> Which I thought I thought that was that was kind of funny. >> So this is this is actually an interesting point which is that there is this social political dynamic. This is not a purely whatever is technologically most efficient and and X Y and Z is how we're going to do it. It is necessarily a having to negotiate so that everyone gets their their p their chunk of flesh, their piece of meat to be able to say, oh like we're supporting NASA by because

36:32you know the factory that's in the harbor does X and Y. So the again it's not operating in a vacuum. Yeah. It has to get appropriations from somewhere and those appropriations meaning money. >> Yeah. >> And support come with strings attached in some cases. >> And this is kind of part of like again when we're no longer having the spectre of cold war >> justifying the spend. >> Yeah. >> You kind of need to get everybody to sit at the table. >> Exactly. Yeah. And and what I what I loved about that abbreviation is like the Senate launch system SLS is the same as the space launch system which is the acronym that is used by NASA to >> get us to orbit. >> Right. Okay. So now that's going to get

37:13us to orbit. Yes. >> Okay. Now once we get us to orbit so that's this first part which is the solid rocket boosters and this first part all the way up to here. That's going to get us all the way into earth orbit. Okay. Now from there we want to get to high earth orbit. Now, in Apollo, only after two to three hours, you just straight up go to the moon. >> Okay. >> Okay. You do like one or two rounds on Earth, make sure everything is checked out, and you're like, "All right, we're go to the moon. We go. >> We're not It's a race. You're not hanging out." >> Yeah. Yeah. These guys are all about risk mitigation. Okay. So, in Artemis, what's end what what ends up happening is we actually go into an high Earth orbit >> before [clears throat] we go to the moon. M

37:53>> the idea here is >> we want to go into high earth orbit because we want to fire the rocket boosters up here [clears throat] >> and make sure that nothing is wrong. If something is wrong, you get back in about >> I think it's 45 hours and you can get back. >> Okay. You don't have to wait days all the way to go to the moon and back like in Apollo 13, right? >> So what they do is something called the apogee rays burn. Apogee is the idea that you have this elliptical orbit. Kepler's laws comes back here. >> Yes. >> Um, whenever you have gravity, the orbits are actually going to be ellipses. So what you do is you have a first orbit that is circular >> and then you do a burn >> which adds velocity and then you go into

38:35an elliptical orbit where you go far away from the earth and then you come back and that elliptical orbit is anywhere from 68,000 m which is about like a fifth of the way to the moon all the way back to 235 miles over a 42h hour period. So you're doing this really highly elliptical orbit to to sort of just gauge the systems. >> Yes. >> Make sure everything is working. Now in the Apollo missions, they were gauging these systems with intermediate Apollo missions. You had Apollo 8, you had Apollo 6, 7, and so so on and so forth. You had all the Gemini missions that were going in to make sure that everything was working. Here, you're doing it all at once because we want to

39:16save money. I was I was actually going to say the reason why we don't just get all these incremental missions because we're not the military-industrial complex and that geopolitical sort of nexus is not funding this. >> Yes. >> And so we have to scrape every dollar we can for everywhere. I mean literally there's funding getting cancelled

Human rating, risk, and why Artemis II matters

39:35actively right now for NASA that literally supports this mission. >> Yeah. And we don't have 2.3% of GDP >> going towards this. going towards this, right? >> This is very different. So, so the analogy is imagine you're a sports a sports team. You're an owner of a sports team and you have to compete with like a program the program from the past when you had $10 billion and now you have 500 million. Like you can't recruit the best Yeah. for $500 million. And so anyway, yeah. So, so that's there's a risk mitigation strategy here, right? But during that high Earth orbit, what they're going to do is they're going to check out everything that's happening at

40:15this very top. >> Okay. One of the things that they're going to do is manually fly Orion. Orion is this upper part right here. >> Yes. >> Right. What they're going to do is detach that from the rest of the spaceship. And they're going to just do maneuvering. They're going to get out. They're going to turn it around. They're going to approach. They're going to go back. They're going to have this thing autonomously move. And then they're going to have it go back and forth. What you want to do is really nitty-gritty get into the details of are all of the controls working right? Like when when I when I when I move this joystick this way, is it responding the way that I wanted to? >> All of these things Apollo was already doing with Gemini and things like that,

40:56they had separate missions. >> This were all doing in one. >> That's a really important distinction. And also the way you describe that too, it's kind of crazy. Oh yeah, we're just going to fly up. We're just going to detach and then it's just going to, you know, move around and then eventually it'll come. Like that's pretty >> It's pretty insane. >> That's pretty insane. >> And it's even more insane that we did it like 50 years ago. >> Yeah. >> I mean, with a lot more money, but still >> also true. >> Very, very cool. Um, and then finally,

High Earth orbit checkout + manual Orion flying

41:27if everything works out right, the crew manually flies Orion relative to the rest of the spacecraft,

Translunar injection, Oberth effect, and free-return trajectories

41:34then we're going to do the trans lunar injection, which is this hybrid free return. What we're going to do is when the spacecraft reaches perigee, which is when it's closer to the Earth, when it's closest to the Earth, >> that's when it has the least potential energy in terms of gravity because it's close to the Earth. But that means it's moving faster, right? That's actually Kepler's second law. Yes. >> That like the closer you get, the faster you move. >> Mhm. >> When it's moving faster, that's when we want to do the burn to go to lunar orbit. This is something called the Oberth effect, which basically says that if you want to if you want to change your trajectory, the fastest way to change your trajectory is to do it when your

42:17velocity is highest because then your delta V actually has the most effect. >> Okay, so that's what they're doing. They're going to do this hybrid free return, which means they're going to go all the way to the moon and back. And they're going to do it in such a way that they're farthest away from the moon. They can see the moon and the earth. They're going to swing around. The moon is going to slingshot them back. And then if everything goes well, then the return, the total mission is going to be about 10 days. There's going to be a direct Earth entry. And the Orion is capable of doing a skip entry where it like sort of slows down with the Earth's atmosphere once and then it comes back and it lands somewhere in the Pacific Ocean right off the coast of California where we have our navy, our beautiful American Navy with the

42:59warships and the and the helicopters. They go and they, you know, pick them up. >> That's where the military comes back into >> Yes. [snorts] After we've done all the hard stuff. >> Yeah. >> Then they come and, you know, do a little quick Uber ride back home. >> Yes. Exactly. And this is not a shot like we the men and women who support it's great. It's fantastic. It's just it's an appropriations problem. Yeah. It's not a uh armed services service members problem. >> Yeah. And I mean we're going to get into the armed services when we talk about the crew because the crew a lot of them are from the armed services. So let's talk about the crew. We've got four astronauts. They've been selected for the NASA Artemis 2 mission. Commander Reed Weisman, pilot Victor Glover,

43:42mission specialist Christina Ko, and mission specialist Jeremy Hansen. And can I just say quite a goodlook >> good looking crew. This is a good-looking crew. >> This is a goodlook crew, dude. And I am sure there was someone on NASA that look I I don't know. [laughter] I don't know. But like the photogenicness of the crew, I'm sure there was someone that was like this is going to be good on Twitter. [laughter] Like this this is going to be good on

Artemis II crew overview (Wiseman, Glover, Koch, Hansen)

44:11Instagram. >> I've seen actually that all of the almost all the posts about Artemis, it's get it's going very viral and when the with the crew backgrounds and it looks like a Hollywood movie, >> dude. They look they look good. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> It's not weird, guys. I'm just saying they look good. >> You're just using your observational skills. >> Yeah. I'm just Yeah. Yeah. symmetric faces, that kind of thing, you know, it's very scientific. Okay, [laughter] you know. Anyways, okay. So, let's start with Commander Reed Wisman. He spent 165 days in space. He's a graduate of the Renestler Polytenic Institute in Troy. Um, RPI, we did a paper from them. That was the string theory paper from two episodes ago.

44:52>> He did a bachelor's in computer engineering and then he did a master's in engineering at John's Hopkins. It's engineering, but we'll give him. He's a captain in the US Navy and he is going to be the commander >> of this mission. And that photo you saw, he's got he's proudly wearing the US Navy >> Yes. >> um sort of insignia on the ISS when he was there. >> Yes. >> All right. Next, we've got pilot Victor Glover. He spent 167 days in space. He's a high school quarterback from Ontario, California. Southern California, boy. >> This guy's from SoCal. He went to Calpali slow in San Louis abyspo BS in engineering masters from air university

45:34which I didn't know was a thing. So apparently the air force just has a university that is it doesn't have a campus but you can take courses as part of the air force and he took it on campus at Edwards Air Force Base in Southern California and he got his masters. >> Um and that was a photo of him working on some hydroponics plant experiment in the ISS. Next we've got Christina Ko. She has spent 328 days in space. >> Oh, gee. >> She's going to be the first woman on the moon. The She's actually the longest. >> Not on just to be >> Yeah. And not as as of yet, but she's also going to be on Artemis 3 to get on the moon, but she'll be the first woman to >> Knock on wood.

46:14>> Knock on wood. Yeah. I don't want to do commentators [laughter] commentators curse or anything, but she's going to at least be the first woman, if everything goes well, to round the moon. Yes. you know, and be the furthest woman in outer space. Uh, she's actually quite cool because she had an electrical engineering and a physics bachelor's. >> We love to see it. >> We love to see a physics bachelors from NC State in Raleigh. >> Yeah. Which >> it's pronounced Raleigh. >> Oh, whatever. [laughter] And and then an MS in electrical engineering from the same place. >> Yes. >> Um, she's got the longest single continuous stay in space for a woman. And part of her paradigm was, you know, her extended mission is being used to

46:55study the physical, biological, and mental effects of long-term space travel on women because we have a ton of data of long-term space travel on men. But, >> you know, moving forward, we need we need all the data from everywhere, right? So, her >> 328 days is going to be crucial for that understanding. Mhm. >> She's worked in Antarctica, Gddard Space Flight Center, and the Applied Physics Lab at Johns Hopkins. The Applied Physics Lab is like >> kind of like the JPL of Maryland. Um, you know how JPL is associated with Caltech? Applied Physics Lab is associated with John's Hopkins. It's kind of this independent research entity that does crazy good stuff.

47:35>> Okay. Um, the photo actually shows her with the Cold Atom Lab. This is really cool. So what they did on the ISS was create a quantum experiment. They're cooling rubidium atoms down to near absolute zero, billionth of a degree near absolute zero. And they're creating a Bose Einstein condensate, which is this fifth form of matter on the International Space Station. So they can do like quantum physics experiments on the International Space Station. >> This is this is like science fiction stuff. I mean, the ISS is crazy because you have like a you have like a university physics lab but in outer space in zero G. It's one of the craziest things that we've made as human

48:16beings. And she was she was doing that in that photo. That was that was incredible. And then finally, we've got Jeremy Hansen, >> the squid. >> Yeah. And you know, he's Canadian, so we don't have to talk about it. [laughter] >> No, I'm just kidding. >> I mean, Toronto lost to, you know, the Dodgers. >> We will never forget, >> you know. I'm sorry. It's just [laughter] how it goes. >> It's okay, everyone. I was I was born in Montreal, so I am also Canadian by at least birth. We support our >> maybe current/former allies. >> Yeah. Yeah. I don't [laughter] know anymore right? >> We don't know how it's going. >> Anyways, okay. So, jokes aside, one thing that struck me about him is he's had zero days in space. This is going to be his first time in space. >> He's going around the moon. >> It's pretty It's pretty crazy.

48:57>> What a lucky lucky individual. Yes. >> Um he got his bachelor's from the Royal Military College in space science and then a master's in physics. >> Another physics. >> Yeah. And I checked out his master's thesis. By the way, um I scrolled through his master's thesis. The first thing was the abstract was written in French and I was already >> ticked off by the whole thing. I was like, what the hell? Yeah. But then actually he wrote in English because of course science is done in English. Um, the master's thesis was wide field of wide field view of satellite tracking. >> Mhm. >> Very cool. Because what he ended up doing was basically creating a really cheap CCD camera that could track

49:38satellites very accurately and then from that figure out what satellites were doing what. It it was a really cool master's thesis to be honest. He he's got the rank of colonel in the Royal Canadian Air Force and now he's going to be going to the moon. And I have to say um the crew has a great sense of humor. They were on the Cobar Report for an interview last year and it's one of the funniest interviews. Just a little tidbit that I want to share from that interview. Um Jeremy Hansen was seated at the end because he's the tallest of them, but Coar made a joke about how you're Canadian so you're you're seated at the end. But the funniest thing was, you know, he

50:20acknowledged that the US could do this on its own, but it's an incredible testament to what NASA is doing as an international entity >> to bring together someone from the Canadian Air Force to go into space. >> The funniest thing that he said was there was a joke about Coar asked, "So, who's going to turn the oxygen tanks?" That's a reference to Apollo 13 because the explosion on Apollo 13 happened because the the the pilot on Apollo 13 was asked to turn on the oxygen tank stirring >> thing. >> And that oxygen tank stirring is what

51:00created the explosion that became Apollo 13. Right. So, so it's sort of this like taboo in NASA of like cuz somebody's got to stir the oxygen tanks. So, who's it going to be? And Jeremy, very, very funny. He was like, "Actually, I've been asking to throw one switch and they've told me that I can do [laughter] that." It was so funny, dude. Because everybody else was just like laughing their ass up. >> Well done. Well done. Well, he understood the assignment. >> Yeah, dude. I thought it was just so funny. And the chemistry and the crew is just so great. Like, I'm I'm really looking forward to this being a success, >> you know? >> That's so good. Oh, it's so good. >> Yeah. So, I think we've covered

51:41structure of the mission. >> Yeah. >> What it's aiming to do. Artemis 2 is a part of a long-term project that will ultimately end with having a semi-permanent slash the goal of having a semi-permanent/permanent uh >> presence on the moon. And so for folks who are saying, "Oh, they're going to the moon but not landing. Why?" I come back to my sports analogy which was like imagine you're the GM or the head coach or the manager of an English Premier League soccer team right in the 90s. Let's say I'm Alex Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United. I have Beckham, I have uh Paul

52:22Scholes, I have Gary Neville, Roy Keane. I have all these great players. We win five champion. We five Premier Leagues. Most winningest team ever. It's amazing. What made that team work? We had the money, we had the talent, and then all of the Janice Qua that makes teams work. >> Yeah. >> Now, fast forward 25 years and same Manchester United, we don't have any of those players. The players we now have, meh. >> Mhm. >> Not comparable. The money we now have, meh, not as effective cuz the Qataris have come in with money. The Americans have come in with money. Okay.

53:02>> And so now all the best players, all the talent, all the in you've let Carrington where we do training, it's run down now. None of the people that were there in the '9s that knew how we built a championship winning team. >> Yeah. >> None of them are here anymore. It's a bunch of new people who've never done it before. That analogy is exactly why you can't just rinse repeat going to the moon. >> Yeah. You can't just go to the moon. all of the different component parts that make a Super Bowl winning team, a premiership winning team. It's hard to go back to back to do just winning sports. >> Yeah. >> Right. In backto-back years with the same everything. >> Imagine, right, trying to do the most

53:45impossible task in humanity >> with no like almost none of the muscle memory from the first time. I just bring that analogy to try to help people reframe how they think about this because >> it's it's just not it's it's it's not the same anything. >> Yeah. >> And so of course we're going to have to again we don't have 2% of the GDP to go forward like money is really a big driver of us being able to do stuff and we just there's just not the money there. But we're going to with that entry point talk about a couple of the myths that arise as it relates to any conversation about the moon.

Why the hoax narratives persist

54:26>> Yeah. And so the first myth which is one that always comes up immediately. I was shocked in our video last video about Artemis which was in the rundown and it was barely anything >> and everyone was just going crazy. >> Yeah. And I didn't expect it. Myth number one is about Van Allen uh belt radiation or van Van Allen radiation belts being impassible. Yes, this is myth number one. Yes. So what are the Van Allen radiation belts? Well, the Earth has a magnetic field and so it traps radiation from the cosmic background from the sun from all over the place into these sort of donuts

55:07around the Earth. There's an inner belt which is mostly high energy protons and then there's an outer belt that's mostly high energy electrons. And the myth is that you can't go through without killing yourself. That is totally false because the transit time you can actually calculate the transit time. We're going at about 11 km/s. Let's say even slower 6 km/s which the escape velocity of the Earth is 11 km/s. If you were to calculate how big that belt is, you spend about 8 minutes through the core and about an hour through the whole thing. >> Now, the Apollo missions had shielding. They had aluminum blocks that would

55:48block alpha radiation, which is helium nuclei going through and beta particles. And it's effective against most particles. But, you know, you still have to be concerned about bremaling radiation, which is when electrons come through and they slow down. And if they electrons slow down, then because of electromagnetism, they're going to release light. And that light is usually in the form of X-rays, right? So, so there's going to be some X-ray radiation. Well, the result is that the Apollo 11 dose was about 0.8 0.18 rads, which is comparable to CT scan, >> right? It's far below the lethal dose of 400 rads. >> So, if you have had a CT scan, you've had as much radiation exposure as going through the end belt.

56:28>> Yes. And um to with Artemis actually what I found was really funny was the Artemis 1 which is the mission that preceded Artemis 2. They had mannequins called Helga and Zohar that had active domters which are you know radiation meters that track the amount of radiation that they're getting. >> If you've watched Chernobyl, it's the thing that go

Van Allen belts: what’s real vs what’s exaggerated

56:50>> Yeah. Yeah. 3.6 run, you know. Yeah. [laughter] So the preliminary the preliminary data from those domters show that while the environments is harsh the shielding and the short transit time is enough to keep that dose well within safety limits. >> And it looks like the lethal dose is uh 400 rats. >> Yes. >> And so we're talking about8 and the Apollo times. >> Yeah. >> And so we're like we're not even >> Yeah. And I mean you do it so that the trajectory of the mission actually like >> avoids the big part of that radiation belt, right? you you know where the donut is and you can figure out how to avoid it. >> And this is why launch windows are a thing. >> Yes. Exactly. [laughter] Yeah. So the

57:31second one >> Yes. >> flags are waved in a vacuum. Right. This was the flag that was waving and it's like oh how is it waving if it's in a vacuum and then there's no air. Actually I would actually like to suggest that the flag waving is actually a characteristic of the vacuum. And here's why. So in a vacuum there's no atmosphere. >> Mhm. >> Correct. [clears throat] So with a flag that's waving, if the air is very still like it is in the studio, then the friction from the air is going to stop the waving. >> Mhm. >> So that the flag is going to be still. >> Mhm. >> If there's no air and I give the flag a certain amount of momentum, it's kind of

58:12like a pendulum just sling swinging back and forth. It's going to keep waving. the only friction is coming from the internal friction of the fiber in the flag itself. >> Right? >> And so the fact that it kept sort of

Flag, shadows, “no stars”: camera physics and lighting

58:26going in the simple harmonic motion is a feature of the fact that there's nothing there to slow it down. >> The the point being if you go like imagine like Heroes of Vujima putting the flag down on the ground >> and and then you like try to adjust it for the camera and whatever you're going to introduce some momentum. Well, there's no way you can place the flag without introducing momentum. >> Yes, exactly. And and the fact that it it kept sort of swinging a little bit is because there's nothing else to slow it down. And the the damping effect of the fiber itself is actually too small >> over a few oscillations. It does slow down, which you see. Yes. But you know, it's not enough. >> These are just like layups. Yeah. Next

59:06one. >> Next one is this. Nonp parallel shadows imply multiple light sources. So, it happened in a studio because the shadows are not pointing in the same direction. This one's like the most dumb to me [laughter] cuz like anyone who's taken a photograph has seen that the lights point towards a common center. >> Yes. >> Like just go outside when the sun is out and then look at take a photo with your phone of two light poles and they'll they'll be pointing to some source. They're not going to be parallel just because of the nature of photography and the idea that you've got a single source that is capturing this. >> That one's so dumb, >> guys. Okay, the next one is the no stars

59:48in the sky. There's no stars in the sky in any of the photographs. Well, the reason for that is the optical dynamic range, right? If you want if you want to take photographs, the surface of the moon is 30 times brighter than the stars. So, anyone who's done photography knows that if you want to if you want to have f-stop of like f11 and uh exposure time of 1 250th of a second, you're not going to get anything. I >> I mean, I deal with this trying to set up our cameras and I'm trying to make us look beautiful, but I'm like a slightly darker than you. Like, it's just like it's like >> it's this whole thing, right? And actually I wanted to show that photograph because we actually installed in Apollo 16 we installed a far

1:00:30ultraviolet camera. >> Yes. >> And on the right we see that far ultraviolet camera and there you can actually see stars. There's a photo of the Earth in far UV and the stars around the Earth. >> Yes. >> Jokes aside, that's an incredible photograph. >> It's the Earth with the stars in the background. >> Yes. >> Look at that. >> And it's it has a sort of crescent, you know, glow. It's >> it's amazing. It puts our place among the stars in the cosmos. I think that's really cool. >> Debunked. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. And now let's look for direct evidence. Okay. So, proving the landings, there was this thing called a lunar laser ranging. Um Apollo 11,4 and 15. They left retroreflector arrays on

1:01:10the moon. And so, you can point lasers to the specific points on the moon where Apollo 11, 14, and 15 were there. I mean, we know the coordinates of where the moon are. And nowadays, the laser can be localized to just that part of the moon. And if you point it at other parts of the moon, you're not going to get the laser to bounce back. But if you point it where Apollo 11, 14, and 15 were, you will get the laser to point back. And you can actually >> measure the roundtrip time, it's going to be about 2.5 seconds. And nowadays, our clocks are so good that you can measure the distance moving away because the moon is moving away at about 3.8 cm per year. M and so every year if you

1:01:51were to do this experiment you would actually see the time delay increasing >> by a tiny tiny margin because the moon is moving away. >> This is very dear to me because um there was this thing called the bronze dicki theory out of Princeton. There was a new theory for gravity. What they said was perhaps the gravitational constant which is g is not actually constant but it's actually a scalar field that varies across the cosmos in space and time. And one of the ways to do this was to measure the distance to the moon very very precisely. And that's actually one of the reasons why the Apollo the the Apollo astronauts left these retroreflective mirrors because the

1:02:32Princeton team pitched this idea to NASA and we're like, "Hey, this would be a cool way to measure G." Yes. >> It's like a fundamental test of general relativity. >> Yes. Cuz we're now on a body rocky body off planet that >> and that's like really far away. So it's maybe perhaps outside of the sort of friction of the earth if there's like some scalar field that like the earth is dragging or some kind of thing like that, you know. >> So So I I thought that was really cool. The second thing is the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which is like a satellite that goes around the moon and takes photos of the moon, can actually see tracks of Apollo 17's car rides, right? You can you can

1:03:13literally see the [laughter] car rides and then and then you can you can go and and see Apollo 17 and look at their footage and be like, "Oh, they went here." And then you can check the tracks and be like, "Oh, they went here. They spent some time there and then they went here and they spent some time there on their moon buggy." And they've been taking photos since 2009. The resolution is about um half a meter per pixel. So you can literally see the tracks, right? The verification also comes with other um nation states. The Japanese with Selen and Kaguya and the Indian ISRO they made Chandrean 1. They've taken photographs of the Apollo 11 and Apollo 2 lunar module that are left on the moon. >> I just don't get it.

1:03:54>> Right. So you can literally like what? So what you're telling me that the the Japanese and the Indians and the European Space Agency, everyone is colluding >> and and then also that the Chinese and Russians aren't calling this out and making a big whole stink about it. >> Yeah. And actually that that takes me to my final point, which is the Russians, why didn't they say anything in 1969 when we went to the moon? They could have easily been like, "No, they didn't." You know what they did instead? They denied that there was ever a race in the first place. [laughter] Okay, this is archival photographs of their Saturn 5. Their version of the Saturn 5. It was actually bigger. It failed. >> Of course it did. >> But look at it.

1:04:34>> Look at it. I mean, it failed. Jokes aside, the fact that they even got this far is insane given the amount of >> technology that they were behind on in terms of computing and things like that. But >> back to the jokes. Of course, it failed because it's the Russians. But at the end of the day, you know what they did? They were like, "No, we weren't even trying to go to the moon. I don't know what you guys are talking about. I mean, yeah, you guys went to I mean, good for you, I guess, but like we were never even trying." That was their retort. Their retort was not they never went to the moon. Their retort was we didn't even know we were in a race. Whether you look at it geopolitically, whether you look at it from what you can reproduce with current instruments, like again,

1:05:16you can you can it's visible. If you have a laser pointer, if you have a high powered telescope, >> multiple other countries have verified this to be true. >> I the flag it's like the vacuum, it everything is it just doesn't >> I'm just I was really surprised at how many people >> it's not even a minority of the American public.

Evidence Apollo happened: retroreflectors, orbital tracks, and global verification

1:05:36>> No, it's actually it's a really significant number of people >> and I was unfamiliar with their game. >> Yeah. >> Um but it's >> it's not a good game, guys. It's it's it's everything is anyway um I it's this is so what we do in space is so cool and so incredible and is standing on the shoulders of an unbelievable amount of math, physics, uh biology, chemistry work that has been going on now for a very long time. And it's important to me

1:06:17that like all of those people who have sacrificed and done this work to like make this happen and like ultimately as a species we will I believe and I I have to believe for my own spirit that we will be traveling the stars one day. Maybe not in our lifetime. Maybe the aliens can help us a little bit with getting getting a little bit get that interstellar thing going. >> Yeah. But regardless, like this is like such an important aspect of I think our identity as a species of being explorers and having curiosity and wisdom. And it's like the perfect distillation of all of those aspects. >> Yeah. >> And to just minimize the work and the efforts and the blood, sweat, and tears

1:06:58that so many people put in, you know, to all efforts related to space. Um it just

Closing reflections

1:07:06it's just a huge disservice to a huge number of people. Also, for all the Elon bros, again, Elon knows we went to the moon. >> Yeah. >> So, you like to believe everything he says. Why don't you believe him about this? >> Like, >> you know, he's your man. >> No, he's part of the, >> you know, [laughter] it's part of the thingy, you know. >> Um, huge shout out to all the countries

Artemis Accords + wishing the crew luck

1:07:29that are in the Artemis Accords, uh, NASA, Canadian Space Agency, uh, ESA. um to the crew that is going to get ready to go out there. The launch window works, you know, hopefully we do. They're doing a lot on this mission all at the same time. Yeah, there are a lot of there's a lot of moving parts and so, you know, best of luck and God speed to the crew. Um this is just going back to the moon is awesome. Yeah. >> Um it there's not it's just awesome. Yeah. >> Uh and I can't wait to see where this goes. Uh uh Apple TV plug because For

For All Mankind tangent

1:08:02all mankind season 5 is coming out in March. And if you haven't watched it before, the idea is >> Yeah, I love that show. >> It's the It's the revisionist history of what would happen if the US got to uh basically the moon for like basically if we were uh second and they got to the moon first and we were second. Um and how that would have changed the entire architectural history. It's quite good. Um and so this is we're not living in

Comment prompt: what does “LBF” mean?

1:08:25that timeline. Uh >> I guess thankfully >> thankfully. Yeah. Well, before we end, we should do uh what should they comment? Ah, yes. >> And I So I propose I didn't know what LBF meant when the liftoff thrust 8.8 million lbf. It's pound something. >> Yes. >> Why don't you guys tell us or come up with the your favorite acronym? LBF. >> LBF. Uh, that's a good one. That's a good one. >> So, if you've made it this far, >> type in what you think LBF means when it comes to thrust. It's got to be Don't Don't make some random crap up. Okay. Make make it like a thrust thing. [laughter] >> [gasps]

Outro

1:09:04>> As you know, uh, my name is Lester Nar here as your host, joined as always by my co-host and our resident PhD and moonlanding debunker, Krishna Chowdery. Uh, again, this was our off week, so we just did the onetory deep dive. We will be back next week. We may have some teasers of a secret project we're working on, but if not, then soon. Uh as always we really appreciate you all and our commitment to staying curious. This is from first principles. [music]

1:09:45[music]