I WASN'T Scared To Say This To NASA... (We've all been saying it)

Is NASA Artemis the best architecture for returning humans to the Moon? What makes Artemis different from Apollo and was Apollo's architecture better? And have we really not been talking about this?

Shoutout and gratitude to Destin at @SmarterEveryDay [so sorry I messed up your name!] who inspired this video and many other conversations. Watch his video here:

Get your Immensely Complex & High Risk t-shirt here:

[alexandrepv]

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" - Leonardo Da Vinci. Don't try to justify why it has to be complex, try to justify why it can't be simple.

[jamese]

Just because people are talking about it doesn't mean it's getting solved.

16 launches to go anywhere is crazy.

[QuinnMorley]

I think the point you make at the end (that this rocket and architecture were designed by committee in congress) just serves to support Destin's arguments.

Destin's video is not a space policy video. It is an engineering ethics video. I don't believe you considered this in your responses (they all seemed to me to be very policy-oriented responses). "Safety? Oh, we have a committee for that! We've got safety covered. We talk about that all the time!"

Any large organization, within which the raises and career advancement opportunities are determined by "performance management, " will tend towards complacency and a culture of not rocking the boat.

If someone had given a presentation like Destin's to the Boeing test pilots and engineers in 2016, the MAX disasters wouldn't have happened.

[JDeWittDIY]

Two huge red flags: "this is a compromise" and "this is not the best architecture".

[PatsFanGermany]

BTW: What sustained architecture? The slow pace this program is moving at, the components that constitute the architecture are obsolete before they can be actually utilised!

[NoOperation]

While Destin certainly doesn't know all of the background on how the sausage was made, and couldn't possibly after just a bit of research as an your acknowledgement that it is overly, unnecessarily complex, and that a big part of the reasoning for that is compromise including *political compromise*, which is how you wrap up this video, perfectly supports Destin's point, not the one you tried to start with. Will it work? maybe. If it fails or kills people due to any of the architecture that ended up that way due to any of those optional compromises, it will be extra tragic.

Also, just because a committee or a group of people debate a topic doesn't mean the best solution was settled on. It means that A solution was settled on, with all those "necessary" compromises in effect. Even the choices to select from start off limited, because a potentially better architecture never made it that far in the discussions to be part of that debate. Far too many people are afraid to really speak their mind, or don't bother doing so when they know they won't be able to have an impact on the decision. Nothing about Nasa or SpaceX prevents them from the same fate every large org has.

[SeanChandler]

I heard “It’s not the best architecture” and “compromise” on a mission with lives at risk.

[PrincessFionaYT]

Not knowing if cryogenic refueling in space is even viable or how many launches you need 2 years before launch shows a serious lack of preparedness and communication. This sort of thing was Destin’s point. He gets the differing goals of the mission.

Artemis looks more like a ‘tech demo’ than a sound engineering plan.

Another one of his points is there doesn’t seem to be any planning for failure. That is unsound engineering. It’s almost as if people are afraid to even voice the possibility of something going wrong, much less address it.

[carlkligerman]

Actually sustainability is one of the biggest issues Destin has with the current mission architecture. Needing twelve rockets launched (we think) to get one to the moon is highly inefficient, ie. unsustainable. The fact that Kathy Leaders is now working for Space X ought to stop people in their tracks. This is the kind of thing that happens in the cess pits of Wall Street firms, not Aerospace companies! This kind of thing (corruption, basically) is what will kill Artemis, and does not constitute some kind of brilliant compromise to ensure it goes ahead by being complicated and expensive enough to be, quote, a national effort!

[Littlewing]

Nothing was stopping the Saturn V from being used for many more years and for different projects except politicians. The Saturn V should have continued to be used & improved upon. We would have been on Mars decades ago.

[peterweicker]

Let's include twelve of everything that could possibly go wrong.

[kfrugolikf]

Laura, First of all, Destin is not claiming that people at NASA and SpaceX are not talking, he's claiming that there may be a fear of the right kind of talking based on both prior cultures at NASA Space Shuttle Program and under Elon Musk corp. Neg feedback was not and is not widely encouraged at those hierarchies. Not to mention, that image from the bozo cowboy at blue origin is a bit dated and is actually very easy to follow, it could actually help to keep people thinking about reality and simplicity. I believe he (destin) welcomes your comments. However, he is not saying that fueling in orbit is not going to be necessary or not possible... just that it's never been done and that's not good if we're getting close (iow, that tech itself needs to be developed and proven before all this "we're going" in 2 yrs stuff), he's not saying this is the same type of mission... just that there is a scoreboard, Apollo = 6 field goals and Artemis = 0 touchdowns (bcs yes, totally different end goals) and that means something...public opinion and politics means something and the branding of the mission program is very important if not just for perspective alone, he's not saying we shouldn't have to do these extra rocket missions (12 or 15, minimum)... idt that's what he wants to "SIMPLIFY", just that the lack of communication in this case has people (those actually involved in the missions) possibly ignorant of these facts and that should change, and he's not saying the architecture for vehicle orbit is not the right choice, he's actually praising the engineering management process that makes that choice... Finally, he's not saying the documents we're using aren't complete or useful, he is saying that anyone directly involved that hasn't taken the time to understand why Apollo was so successful (even with 3 deaths, almost 6) and use that publication and others to gain perspective is doing this program a serious injustice and that they should be ashamed… I’ve worked and taught as an engineer for most of my career, I’m not even that kind of engineer and I would be ashamed as an engineer to refuse to immerse myself in them. Only the greater laymen public are thinking of the two programs as really that similar, Apollo vs. Artemis... he's not speaking to them but in a way, for them. I love his stirring things up, I love your clarifications, I love the bravery on both sides to get these things out in the open with a bit of jousting. The news of the last day or two has actually given folks pause, it prob won't be the last postponement either, for obvious reasons, good reasons. It's a talky-talk, people... We shouldn't be ripping it apart, we should be allowing it to give us and all humans perspective, that's it!

[baxtermullins]

Bottom line: Congress demanded the program use Shuttle components. So, lessons learned could not be completely implemented.

[Vsor]

I feel like the thesis of the video, the lack of communication, is still very valid. The only information NASA puts out on this topic is either so simplified that there is nothing to learned by watching/reading it, or it is tossed out so uncaringly that it is useless, like keynote videos without showing the slides.
Its frustrating that a very complex and interesting topic is only explained via animations for 5 year olds, or marketing points to throw in front of braindead congressmen.

[fleonard]

It needs to refuel 12 times, you know, just like Apollo did. LOL

[highvoltagefeathers]

Ultimately the refueling isn't going to be the problem, it's sending up and refueling this extremely heavy lift, massive cargo vehicle to the moon and pretending it won't ultimately be more efficient to just send people with it, instead of via their own capsule that has to make it out to the moon, lofted by the most expensive and unsustainable launch system ever made.

[iokwong]

Here is the thing, physics and economics don't make compromises. It doesn't matter how many debates, or conversations anyone has or what If NASA is trying to lead or design a sustainable "lunar economy", NASA doesn't know what it is doing. Tell that to the economists, they will have a good laugh for sure.

Here is my bottom line, don't kill any astronaut because of those stupid complexity or seemingly important but completely meaningless political compromises. Thank you.

[AtomicProf]

I think Margaret Thatcher said it best. “The problem with Artemis is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”

[privateerburrows]

OK, glad to hear much of this. May I suggest, then, that perhaps NASA could avoid so much criticism and impatience simply by publicly sharing minutes of their internal meetings. Such minutes would be jumped on and analyzed by hundreds of commentators in social media. Some would be positive, and some negative, of course, but either way they would be better informed comments, by definition.

[billyturner]

So - Artemis' design is to be sustainable? What's sustainable about very expensive SLS one-way rockets?