In your name, exploration. Just what you always wanted people to do – explore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cclha9LowaA&ab_channel=SpaceVideos
Ta.
Looking forward to the launch.
Let’s hope it all goes well.
This will be a test of both the launch system and the capsule.
The blandly named Space Launch System, which has been under development since 2011, is broadly derived from the Space Shuttle launch systems.
The two solid rocket boosters are basically similar to those used on the Space Shuttle, but 25% bigger.
The core is again quite similar looking to the Space Shuttle tank and engines, and indeed will use four Rocketdyne engines left over from the Space Shuttle program (though in future missions they will be using newly designed engines). Like the Shuttle, it uses LOx/LH~2~.
In this configuration it could be used to send 95 tonnes of material to low earth orbit (LEO), or perhaps 30 tonnes to trans lunar injection orbit (TLIO). In maximal configuration it could put 130 tonnes in LEO (about 40 tonnes in TLIO).
It is the first truly super heavy-lift launch vehicle since the retirement of the Saturn V (which could put 140 tonnes in LEO or 45 tonnes in TLIO).
The other component being tested is the crew vehicle (Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle). It too began development under this name in 2011, but it is really the culmination of more than 20 years of work under various designations. It’s a six seater and can support such a crew for three weeks.
This flight will spend several weeks in orbit around the moon before returning.
The first crewed mission is expected in 2024, which will involve 4 crew and will be an orbital mission that doesn’t land. The second crewed mission is scheduled for 2025, which will involve a lunar landing, near the south lunar pole.
>>The first crewed mission is expected in 2024, which will involve 4 crew and will be an orbital mission that doesn’t land.
Bugger.
Peak Warming Man said:
>>The first crewed mission is expected in 2024, which will involve 4 crew and will be an orbital mission that doesn’t land.Bugger.
Uh I mean doesn’t land on the moon … all being well it will eventually make a safe splash down on this planet.
dv said:
This will be a test of both the launch system and the capsule.The blandly named Space Launch System, which has been under development since 2011, is broadly derived from the Space Shuttle launch systems.
The two solid rocket boosters are basically similar to those used on the Space Shuttle, but 25% bigger.
The core is again quite similar looking to the Space Shuttle tank and engines, and indeed will use four Rocketdyne engines left over from the Space Shuttle program (though in future missions they will be using newly designed engines). Like the Shuttle, it uses LOx/LH~2~.In this configuration it could be used to send 95 tonnes of material to low earth orbit (LEO), or perhaps 30 tonnes to trans lunar injection orbit (TLIO). In maximal configuration it could put 130 tonnes in LEO (about 40 tonnes in TLIO).
It is the first truly super heavy-lift launch vehicle since the retirement of the Saturn V (which could put 140 tonnes in LEO or 45 tonnes in TLIO).
The other component being tested is the crew vehicle (Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle). It too began development under this name in 2011, but it is really the culmination of more than 20 years of work under various designations. It’s a six seater and can support such a crew for three weeks.
This flight will spend several weeks in orbit around the moon before returning.
The first crewed mission is expected in 2024, which will involve 4 crew and will be an orbital mission that doesn’t land. The second crewed mission is scheduled for 2025, which will involve a lunar landing, near the south lunar pole.
Today NASA will announce the landing sites for the third Artemis mission, scheduled for 2025.
dv said:
Today NASA will announce the landing sites for the third Artemis mission, scheduled for 2025.
NASA’s moon-landing Artemis astronauts will explore 1 of these lunar locales
The agency announced 13 potential landing regions for its Artemis 3 mission during a news conference held on Friday (Aug. 19). All the candidates are clustered near the south pole of the moon, an area of key scientific and exploration interest alike.
“We can do exciting science at all of them,” said Sarah Noble, Artemis lunar science lead for NASA’s Planetary Science Division. “Many of these are places that the science community has been talking about for years.”
TRENDINGBest TelescopesBest Star ProjectorsWebb Space TelescopeBest BinocularsLego Star Wars dealsBest DronesRussia-Ukraine war space impactsFull Moon CalendarSolar System PlanetsNight Sky TonightCalendar
Space is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s why you can trust us.
NASA’s moon-landing Artemis astronauts will explore 1 of these lunar locales
By Meghan Bartels published about 4 hours ago
All of the sites are near the moon’s south pole.
(opens in new tab) (opens in new tab) (opens in new tab) (opens in new tab) (opens in new tab)
Click here for more Space.com videos…
0 seconds of 1 minute, 59 seconds
PLAY SOUND
We now know where on the moon NASA astronauts will set foot after more than 50 years’ absence.
Advertisement
The agency announced 13 potential landing regions for its Artemis 3 mission during a news conference held on Friday (Aug. 19). All the candidates are clustered near the south pole of the moon, an area of key scientific and exploration interest alike.
“They’re of value to the scientific community and the technology community,” Mark Kirasich, deputy associate administrator for the Artemis Campaign Development Division at NASA, said during the news conference. “People want and need to do things there.”
Sponsored Links
Everybody who goes to work deserves to come home healthy and safeDMIRSLearn More
Related: How NASA’s Artemis moon landing with astronauts works
A diagram shows the 13 candidate regions for the Artemis 3 moon landing. (Image credit: NASA)
“We can do exciting science at all of them,” said Sarah Noble, Artemis lunar science lead for NASA’s Planetary Science Division. “Many of these are places that the science community has been talking about for years.”
https://www.space.com/astronauts-moon-landing-artemis-3-candidate-sites
It needs to be an all woman / diversity mission – no white men allowed. They got to go to the moon already.
A clever shot of Artemis on the pad.
Peak Warming Man said:
A clever shot of Artemis on the pad.
Not far
All systems go for a launch tonight, there were some lighting strikes around the tower but no damage done, apparently.
Peak Warming Man said:
All systems go for a launch tonight, there were some lighting strikes around the tower but no damage done, apparently.
Cool. What time and where can we watch it?
Michael V said:
Peak Warming Man said:
All systems go for a launch tonight, there were some lighting strikes around the tower but no damage done, apparently.
Cool. What time and where can we watch it?
Info here.
https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-1-sls-moon-rocket-launch-webcasts
The link in the OP doesn’t seem to work anymore.
I think it launches at 10:30 tonight our time if my calcs are correct.
Peak Warming Man said:
Michael V said:
Peak Warming Man said:
All systems go for a launch tonight, there were some lighting strikes around the tower but no damage done, apparently.
Cool. What time and where can we watch it?
Info here.
https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-1-sls-moon-rocket-launch-webcastsThe link in the OP doesn’t seem to work anymore.
I think it launches at 10:30 tonight our time if my calcs are correct.
Thanks. Probably a bit late for me, but you never know.
:)
Tau.Neutrino said:
What’s The Big Deal About Artemis – NASA’s New Massive Moon Rocket
Of course, i never got to see a Saturn V liftoff at 7.5 million pounds max. thrust, and until now considered to be the loudest man-made noise besides a nuclear detonation.
But, an Artemis launch at 8.8 millions pounds may well find its way on to the bucket list.
ABC News:
‘61-year-old facing 21 rape charges exploited his standing in religious organisation, police allege
ABC Sunshine Coast
/ By Meg Bolton
The accused is facing more than 50 charges in total, including an additional 30 counts of sexual assault. Police say the charges relate to four young men.’
Beware the man with the Bible in his hand.
Streaming live now, launch will be at 10:30 AEST.
NASA Live: Official Stream of NASA TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21×5lGlDOfg
Bubblecar said:
Streaming live now, launch will be at 10:30 AEST.NASA Live: Official Stream of NASA TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21×5lGlDOfg
Thanks for the link, i’ll be watching.
What was the handle of the one-time Forumite, the lady veterinarian, who passed away a couple of years back? Was it Artemis?
Bubblecar said:
Streaming live now, launch will be at 10:30 AEST.NASA Live: Official Stream of NASA TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21×5lGlDOfg
Bubblecar said:
Bubblecar said:
Streaming live now, launch will be at 10:30 AEST.NASA Live: Official Stream of NASA TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21×5lGlDOfg
Noted. Ta, again.
captain_spalding said:
What was the handle of the one-time Forumite, the lady veterinarian, who passed away a couple of years back? Was it Artemis?
yes.
captain_spalding said:
What was the handle of the one-time Forumite, the lady veterinarian, who passed away a couple of years back? Was it Artemis?
Yes, Artemis and Shell.
Bubblecar said:
captain_spalding said:
What was the handle of the one-time Forumite, the lady veterinarian, who passed away a couple of years back? Was it Artemis?
Yes, Artemis and Shell.
Then, amongst ourselves, we can dedicate the success of the launch to her.
captain_spalding said:
Bubblecar said:
captain_spalding said:
What was the handle of the one-time Forumite, the lady veterinarian, who passed away a couple of years back? Was it Artemis?
Yes, Artemis and Shell.
Then, amongst ourselves, we can dedicate the success of the launch to her.
Aye, as Obviousman (Evil Roy) noted in the OP :)
Bubblecar said:
captain_spalding said:
Bubblecar said:Yes, Artemis and Shell.
Then, amongst ourselves, we can dedicate the success of the launch to her.
Aye, as Obviousman (Evil Roy) noted in the OP :)
Oh, sorry, missed that, came in a bit late.
Hey, does ERB actually call in here these days?
captain_spalding said:
What was the handle of the one-time Forumite, the lady veterinarian, who passed away a couple of years back? Was it Artemis?
Yes. And Shelly.
captain_spalding said:
Bubblecar said:
captain_spalding said:Then, amongst ourselves, we can dedicate the success of the launch to her.
Aye, as Obviousman (Evil Roy) noted in the OP :)
Oh, sorry, missed that, came in a bit late.
Hey, does ERB actually call in here these days?
From time to time, and to start this thread.
Michael V said:
captain_spalding said:
Bubblecar said:Aye, as Obviousman (Evil Roy) noted in the OP :)
Oh, sorry, missed that, came in a bit late.
Hey, does ERB actually call in here these days?
From time to time, and to start this thread.
I thought that he was lost to us.
captain_spalding said:
Michael V said:
captain_spalding said:Oh, sorry, missed that, came in a bit late.
Hey, does ERB actually call in here these days?
From time to time, and to start this thread.
I thought that he was lost to us.
No, that was all those Russian cosmonauts back in the 60s.
Still some sporadic tanking commentary. Launch commentary should be starting soon.
Bubblecar said:
Still some sporadic tanking commentary. Launch commentary should be starting soon.
Let us know when.
I was thinking of joining the streaming about half an hour before launch.
On hold at T minus 40. Engine trouble being investigated.
Bubblecar said:
On hold at T minus 40. Engine trouble being investigated.
Still on hold. Engine No. 3 is being investigated.
Temperature control problems.
Bubblecar said:
Bubblecar said:
On hold at T minus 40. Engine trouble being investigated.
Still on hold. Engine No. 3 is being investigated.
thanks.
I might cut some lettuce for tomorrow’s sandwiches instead…
Bubblecar said:
On hold at T minus 40. Engine trouble being investigated.
Ta.
Just checking web to see what is onboard and what the mission parameters are.
The mission will deploy ten CubeSat satellites.
These CubeSats are:
Interesting payload.
i’ll be amazed if the thing ever takes off
wookiemeister said:
i’ll be amazed if the thing ever takes off
Is there any sound on NASA TV?
I’m not hearing anything
mollwollfumble said:
wookiemeister said:
i’ll be amazed if the thing ever takes off
Is there any sound on NASA TV?
I’m not hearing anything
There is no commentary at the moment. They’re awaiting the assessment of the current problem.
Trouble-shooting plan still being compiled for the engine bleed on Engine 3.
Bubblecar said:
wookiemeister said:
i’ll be amazed if the thing ever takes off
There is no commentary at the moment. They’re awaiting the assessment of the current problem.
Ta. Getting sound now. T – 40 minutes and holding.
News from an hour or so ago.
“Crack in the inner tank’s flange. There appears to be a crack in the inner tank flange of the upper stage. There is frost build-up and there is a trail of vapour from it as can be seen from the image below. Artemis launch control is currently monitoring the situation. Another issue is what appears to be a line of frost on the inner tank seal on the exterior part of the core stage.”
mollwollfumble said:
Bubblecar said:
wookiemeister said:
i’ll be amazed if the thing ever takes off
There is no commentary at the moment. They’re awaiting the assessment of the current problem.
Ta. Getting sound now. T – 40 minutes and holding.
News from an hour or so ago.
“Crack in the inner tank’s flange. There appears to be a crack in the inner tank flange of the upper stage. There is frost build-up and there is a trail of vapour from it as can be seen from the image below. Artemis launch control is currently monitoring the situation. Another issue is what appears to be a line of frost on the inner tank seal on the exterior part of the core stage.”
That tank crack was judged to be a crack in the foam cladding, not the tank.
This engine problem seems more serious.
Bubblecar said:
mollwollfumble said:
Bubblecar said:There is no commentary at the moment. They’re awaiting the assessment of the current problem.
Ta. Getting sound now. T – 40 minutes and holding.
News from an hour or so ago.
“Crack in the inner tank’s flange. There appears to be a crack in the inner tank flange of the upper stage. There is frost build-up and there is a trail of vapour from it as can be seen from the image below. Artemis launch control is currently monitoring the situation. Another issue is what appears to be a line of frost on the inner tank seal on the exterior part of the core stage.”
That tank crack was judged to be a crack in the foam cladding, not the tank.
This engine problem seems more serious.
Bloody!
I’ve stayed up late to watch this.
Official – launch scrubbed.
Launch scrubbed due to an engine bleed.
Michael V said:
Bubblecar said:
mollwollfumble said:Ta. Getting sound now. T – 40 minutes and holding.
News from an hour or so ago.
“Crack in the inner tank’s flange. There appears to be a crack in the inner tank flange of the upper stage. There is frost build-up and there is a trail of vapour from it as can be seen from the image below. Artemis launch control is currently monitoring the situation. Another issue is what appears to be a line of frost on the inner tank seal on the exterior part of the core stage.”
That tank crack was judged to be a crack in the foam cladding, not the tank.
This engine problem seems more serious.
Bloody!
I’ve stayed up late to watch this.
“Scrub for today” called. Engine lead.
scrub for today
Bubblecar said:
Launch scrubbed due to an engine bleed.
Put a bandaid on it, and light the blue touch paper. My time is important dammit!
Bubblecar said:
Launch scrubbed due to an engine bleed.
…a faulty engine bleed :)
It was supposed to bleed, but isn’t doing it properly or at the right temperature or some such.
Kingy said:
Bubblecar said:
Launch scrubbed due to an engine bleed.
Put a bandaid on it, and light the blue touch paper. My time is important dammit!
Never mind, there’ll be a next time.
Ah well.
mollwollfumble said:
Bubblecar said:
wookiemeister said:
i’ll be amazed if the thing ever takes off
There is no commentary at the moment. They’re awaiting the assessment of the current problem.
Ta. Getting sound now. T – 40 minutes and holding.
News from an hour or so ago.
“Crack in the inner tank’s flange. There appears to be a crack in the inner tank flange of the upper stage. There is frost build-up and there is a trail of vapour from it as can be seen from the image below. Artemis launch control is currently monitoring the situation. Another issue is what appears to be a line of frost on the inner tank seal on the exterior part of the core stage.”
Ive gathered the flavour of Artemis over the years
Next try: Sept. 2
At least they didn’t call it Astronauty McAstronautface.
Bubblecar said:
At least they didn’t call it Astronauty McAstronautface.
I’d go with Rad, short for Radiation.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Bubblecar said:
At least they didn’t call it Astronauty McAstronautface.
I’d go with Rad, short for Radiation.
R3D3
Take it all apart and put it back together.
Just kidding
Tau.Neutrino said:
oh
Last Video: Why The War Between The US and China Will Be Fought In Space!
can’t all these fuckwits just fight their wars in a sandbox or sandpit or some kind of virtual battle arena like perhaps psport or esport or all that stuff
Current launch schedule will see lift off at about 4:17am, Sunday morning AEST.
Dealing with a hydrogen leak this time. But they still think they can preserve the launch window.
Bubblecar said:
Dealing with a hydrogen leak this time. But they still think they can preserve the launch window.
fk if even NASA can’t sort this then what hope do plain old civilians have of running their cars on that stuff
BOOM
Scrubbed again.
There are going to be questions asked.
Why can’t they get this one right? The future of NASA’s manned missions depends on it but it’s scrub after scrub, presumably at heavy cost.
Bubblecar said:
There are going to be questions asked.
Why can’t they get this one right? The future of NASA’s manned missions depends on it but it’s scrub after scrub, presumably at heavy cost.
yeah not a good look
SCIENCE said:
Bubblecar said:
There are going to be questions asked.
Why can’t they get this one right? The future of NASA’s manned missions depends on it but it’s scrub after scrub, presumably at heavy cost.
yeah not a good look
Isn’t this the purpose of this mission, to iron out the kinks? Better to figure out the issues before putting people on top…
furious said:
SCIENCE said:Bubblecar said:
There are going to be questions asked.
Why can’t they get this one right? The future of NASA’s manned missions depends on it but it’s scrub after scrub, presumably at heavy cost.
yeah not a good look
Isn’t this the purpose of this mission, to iron out the kinks? Better to figure out the issues before putting people on top…
Of course, but better still if they have the kinks ironed out before staging expensive launch attempts.
furious said:
SCIENCE said:Bubblecar said:
There are going to be questions asked.
Why can’t they get this one right? The future of NASA’s manned missions depends on it but it’s scrub after scrub, presumably at heavy cost.
yeah not a good look
Isn’t this the purpose of this mission, to iron out the kinks? Better to figure out the issues before putting people on top…
A rocket exploding on take off is not a good look either.
Better to keep ironing out problems.
Bubblecar said:
furious said:
SCIENCE said:yeah not a good look
Isn’t this the purpose of this mission, to iron out the kinks? Better to figure out the issues before putting people on top…
Of course, but better still if they have the kinks ironed out before staging expensive launch attempts.
This was a very basic hardware failure of the kind that should be detectable before the thing reaches the launch pad.
Bubblecar said:
furious said:
SCIENCE said:yeah not a good look
Isn’t this the purpose of this mission, to iron out the kinks? Better to figure out the issues before putting people on top…
Of course, but better still if they have the kinks ironed out before staging expensive launch attempts.
It really is hard to get the kinks sorted out on a launch attempt without holding a launch attempt.
sibeen said:
Bubblecar said:
furious said:Isn’t this the purpose of this mission, to iron out the kinks? Better to figure out the issues before putting people on top…
Of course, but better still if they have the kinks ironed out before staging expensive launch attempts.
It really is hard to get the kinks sorted out on a launch attempt without holding a launch attempt.
Fine, but when the kinks pile up and multiple launches are scrubbed, questions are going to be asked, such as: “Given all the kinks, are these launch attempts premature? Maybe they need more work on the basic design and its components etc..”
Bubblecar said:
sibeen said:
Bubblecar said:Of course, but better still if they have the kinks ironed out before staging expensive launch attempts.
It really is hard to get the kinks sorted out on a launch attempt without holding a launch attempt.
Fine, but when the kinks pile up and multiple launches are scrubbed, questions are going to be asked, such as: “Given all the kinks, are these launch attempts premature? Maybe they need more work on the basic design and its components etc..”
It’s engineering. It’s not an exact process, no matter how it is portrayed. It’s why these commissioning processes are carried out.
So is this launch all hype’d up or is it just here?
Like is it literally meant to be a hush-hush just roll down to the pad and give it a whirl, see if everything checks out, please don’t watch too closely or get hopes up?
Or is it actually big announcements and let’s go play?
(as you know we’re focused on pandemic right now so haven’t really been attending to what NASA says or doesn’t say)
Probably if we were running this show we’d be like can everyone just calm down slash fuck off until we’ve tested it successfully first, and then you can watch the subsequent missions cheers no worries.
I see that it didn’t launch again. A shame, I was hoping it’d do well this time.
Bubblecar said:
Bubblecar said:
furious said:Isn’t this the purpose of this mission, to iron out the kinks? Better to figure out the issues before putting people on top…
Of course, but better still if they have the kinks ironed out before staging expensive launch attempts.
This was a very basic hardware failure of the kind that should be detectable before the thing reaches the launch pad.
What is a “basic hardware failure”. Sounds like someone cut the hose, or a clamp fell off or something.
buffy said:
Bubblecar said:
Bubblecar said:Of course, but better still if they have the kinks ironed out before staging expensive launch attempts.
This was a very basic hardware failure of the kind that should be detectable before the thing reaches the launch pad.
What is a “basic hardware failure”. Sounds like someone cut the hose, or a clamp fell off or something.
It’d be easy to miss something.
IIRC, the full pre-flight checklist for the pilot in the driver’s seat for a UH-1H helicopter is 84 items long. The crew chief (or the pilot) also has a ‘walk-around’ checklist of things on the helicopter that’s 63 items long, in seven separate areas of the aircraft.
Can you imagine what the checklist for an Artemis rocket must be like?
captain_spalding said:
buffy said:
Bubblecar said:This was a very basic hardware failure of the kind that should be detectable before the thing reaches the launch pad.
What is a “basic hardware failure”. Sounds like someone cut the hose, or a clamp fell off or something.
It’d be easy to miss something.
IIRC, the full pre-flight checklist for the pilot in the driver’s seat for a UH-1H helicopter is 84 items long. The crew chief (or the pilot) also has a ‘walk-around’ checklist of things on the helicopter that’s 63 items long, in seven separate areas of the aircraft.
Can you imagine what the checklist for an Artemis rocket must be like?
I had a look at it on the pad the first time and it looked fine to me.
Peak Warming Man said:
captain_spalding said:
buffy said:What is a “basic hardware failure”. Sounds like someone cut the hose, or a clamp fell off or something.
It’d be easy to miss something.
IIRC, the full pre-flight checklist for the pilot in the driver’s seat for a UH-1H helicopter is 84 items long. The crew chief (or the pilot) also has a ‘walk-around’ checklist of things on the helicopter that’s 63 items long, in seven separate areas of the aircraft.
Can you imagine what the checklist for an Artemis rocket must be like?
I had a look at it on the pad the first time and it looked fine to me.
did you give the tyres a kick?
Peak Warming Man said:
I had a look at it on the pad the first time and it looked fine to me.
There’s probably a lot things that they can look at and say, ‘nah, it’ll be fine’, a lot of things that could be a worry.
Having a lot of hydrogen leaking about the place when you’re just about to light the most powerful rocket NASA’s ever launched might be a worry. Think ‘Hindenburg’.
captain_spalding said:
Peak Warming Man said:I had a look at it on the pad the first time and it looked fine to me.
There’s probably a lot things that they can look at and say, ‘nah, it’ll be fine’, a lot of things that could be a worry.
Having a lot of hydrogen leaking about the place when you’re just about to light the most powerful rocket NASA’s ever launched might be a worry. Think ‘Hindenburg’.
was he full of gas too?
Bogsnorkler said:
captain_spalding said:
was he full of gas too?
He was a good general in WW1 (as the Russians found out), but he was less use than a blimp by the time he was made notional head of state in Germany.
I screwed up the quoting there. The mark of a genuine CS post.
sibeen said:
Bubblecar said:
sibeen said:It really is hard to get the kinks sorted out on a launch attempt without holding a launch attempt.
Fine, but when the kinks pile up and multiple launches are scrubbed, questions are going to be asked, such as: “Given all the kinks, are these launch attempts premature? Maybe they need more work on the basic design and its components etc..”
It’s engineering. It’s not an exact process, no matter how it is portrayed. It’s why these commissioning processes are carried out.
Yes, even the above average engineers of this forum have been known to make mistakes of an order of magnitude or 12.
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:
Bubblecar said:Fine, but when the kinks pile up and multiple launches are scrubbed, questions are going to be asked, such as: “Given all the kinks, are these launch attempts premature? Maybe they need more work on the basic design and its components etc..”
It’s engineering. It’s not an exact process, no matter how it is portrayed. It’s why these commissioning processes are carried out.
Yes, even the above average engineers of this forum have been known to make mistakes of an order of magnitude or 12.
There’s that quote from a NASA bloke (can’t remember who): ‘we learn to build spacecraft that work by building spacecraft that don’t work’.
captain_spalding said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:It’s engineering. It’s not an exact process, no matter how it is portrayed. It’s why these commissioning processes are carried out.
Yes, even the above average engineers of this forum have been known to make mistakes of an order of magnitude or 12.
There’s that quote from a NASA bloke (can’t remember who): ‘we learn to build spacecraft that work by building spacecraft that don’t work’.
And the same for astronauts.
Peak Warming Man said:
captain_spalding said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Yes, even the above average engineers of this forum have been known to make mistakes of an order of magnitude or 12.
There’s that quote from a NASA bloke (can’t remember who): ‘we learn to build spacecraft that work by building spacecraft that don’t work’.
And the same for astronauts.
Bubblecar said:
There are going to be questions asked.Why can’t they get this one right? The future of NASA’s manned missions depends on it but it’s scrub after scrub, presumably at heavy cost.
This is the first launch of its kind. Delays are kind of normal.
The first Apollo launch (Apollo 4), was scrubbed and delayed several times.
dv said:
Bubblecar said:
There are going to be questions asked.Why can’t they get this one right? The future of NASA’s manned missions depends on it but it’s scrub after scrub, presumably at heavy cost.
This is the first launch of its kind. Delays are kind of normal.
The first Apollo launch (Apollo 4), was scrubbed and delayed several times.
Yeah, cancelling a launch might be expensive, but how much more expensive would it be to blow the rocket to smithereens on the launch pad?
captain_spalding said:
dv said:
Bubblecar said:
There are going to be questions asked.Why can’t they get this one right? The future of NASA’s manned missions depends on it but it’s scrub after scrub, presumably at heavy cost.
This is the first launch of its kind. Delays are kind of normal.
The first Apollo launch (Apollo 4), was scrubbed and delayed several times.
Yeah, cancelling a launch might be expensive, but how much more expensive would it be to blow the rocket to smithereens on the launch pad?
Yeah definitely more expensive, but they only get back a small part of the rocket system anyway just like the Saturn 5 rockets. The damage to the launch tower and reputation would sting somewhat as well.
I had the radio on in the car just before, and I hadn’t thought about it, but they have to take all the fuel out again now. You can’t leave it in the tanks while you faff about fixing problems. Because, as the boffin said “well, it is rocket fuel…”
buffy said:
I had the radio on in the car just before, and I hadn’t thought about it, but they have to take all the fuel out again now. You can’t leave it in the tanks while you faff about fixing problems. Because, as the boffin said “well, it is rocket fuel…”
the main engines burn LOX and cryogenic Hydrogen. I doubt there is any means to unload it. They’d just keep it topped up.
buffy said:
I had the radio on in the car just before, and I hadn’t thought about it, but they have to take all the fuel out again now. You can’t leave it in the tanks while you faff about fixing problems. Because, as the boffin said “well, it is rocket fuel…”
It is basically a very large bomb.
Bogsnorkler said:
buffy said:
I had the radio on in the car just before, and I hadn’t thought about it, but they have to take all the fuel out again now. You can’t leave it in the tanks while you faff about fixing problems. Because, as the boffin said “well, it is rocket fuel…”
the main engines burn LOX and cryogenic Hydrogen. I doubt there is any means to unload it. They’d just keep it topped up.
He very definitely said they take it out. It was on NewsRadio. I missed who he was.
buffy said:
Bogsnorkler said:
buffy said:
I had the radio on in the car just before, and I hadn’t thought about it, but they have to take all the fuel out again now. You can’t leave it in the tanks while you faff about fixing problems. Because, as the boffin said “well, it is rocket fuel…”
the main engines burn LOX and cryogenic Hydrogen. I doubt there is any means to unload it. They’d just keep it topped up.
He very definitely said they take it out. It was on NewsRadio. I missed who he was.
Yeah the hydrogen would certainly have to be drained. I seem to remember hydrogen embrittlement of metal is a thing. I’m not sure of the details though sorry.
The Russians tried fixing things on a fully-fuelled rocket in 1960.
This led to something known as the ‘the Nedelin explosion’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpX6HHBdEwo
No-one has tried to do that since then.
buffy said:
Bogsnorkler said:
buffy said:
I had the radio on in the car just before, and I hadn’t thought about it, but they have to take all the fuel out again now. You can’t leave it in the tanks while you faff about fixing problems. Because, as the boffin said “well, it is rocket fuel…”
the main engines burn LOX and cryogenic Hydrogen. I doubt there is any means to unload it. They’d just keep it topped up.
He very definitely said they take it out. It was on NewsRadio. I missed who he was.
there you go. don’t have a radio in the puta room.
Bogsnorkler said:
buffy said:
Bogsnorkler said:the main engines burn LOX and cryogenic Hydrogen. I doubt there is any means to unload it. They’d just keep it topped up.
He very definitely said they take it out. It was on NewsRadio. I missed who he was.
there you go. don’t have a radio in the puta room.
Oh, and another try has to be worked around a prior booking for the launchpad apparently. Might have been a SpaceX launch due in a week or two?
buffy said:
Bogsnorkler said:
buffy said:He very definitely said they take it out. It was on NewsRadio. I missed who he was.
there you go. don’t have a radio in the puta room.
Oh, and another try has to be worked around a prior booking for the launchpad apparently. Might have been a SpaceX launch due in a week or two?
They take the fuel out for two main reasons, safety and fuel boil off.
buffy said:
Bogsnorkler said:
buffy said:He very definitely said they take it out. It was on NewsRadio. I missed who he was.
there you go. don’t have a radio in the puta room.
Oh, and another try has to be worked around a prior booking for the launchpad apparently. Might have been a SpaceX launch due in a week or two?
The NASA chap on the radio this morning said mid-October at the earliest.
Just to remind y’all of the context. This is the first test launch of the first superheavy lifter to exist since the 1970s. They aren’t catching the number 30 bus to Moontown. Every new program encounters these delays.
Is this scrub for the same reason as last time? ie a hydrogen leak in a transfer pipe?
Kingy said:
Is this scrub for the same reason as last time? ie a hydrogen leak in a transfer pipe?
That was a different leaky fuel line and various other problems.
dv said:
Just to remind y’all of the context. This is the first test launch of the first superheavy lifter to exist since the 1970s. They aren’t catching the number 30 bus to Moontown. Every new program encounters these delays.
That’s all very well but they should have reminded themselves that Bubblecar was staying up for this and they needed to get it right.
Go woke
Go broke
NASA’s newest rocket is a colossal waste of money
Launching people into space should be left to private industry
Editor’s note: On August 29th, a couple of hours before the scheduled take-off, NASA postponed the launch of Artemis because of engine problems. The agency’s next opportunity to send the rocket into space would be on September 2nd. Scientists, engineers, policymakers and space fans have waited over a decade for the SLS’s maiden launch. They will have to wait at least a few more days.
In his new book, “The Crux”, Richard Rumelt, a professor of business strategy, writes about a conversation he once had with an air-force colonel. What, Mr Rumelt asked, is the perfect fighter jet? The colonel replied: “The perfect design would have contractors in each state and a part made in each congressional district.” The tale is told after Mr Rumelt has described the waste and incoherence of nasa’s Space Shuttle programme—something he blames squarely on Congress.
Alas, Congress never learns. On August 29th or soon after, more than a decade after the shuttle programme came to an end, nasa will test its newest rocket for the first time. The Space Launch System (sls) is the first step in the agency’s Artemis programme, which aims to take humans back to the Moon and, eventually, to Mars. sls is the successor to the Space Shuttle and heir to the legendary Saturn V rocket that took Apollo astronauts to the Moon.
It is also a colossal boondoggle. The conception and execution of the project has been a near-perfect example of pork-barrel politics. The result is a rocket that privately built models will probably outclass soon after its maiden launch. Don’t blame the scientists and engineers at nasa for the debacle, though. The fault lies, once again, with Congress.
The Space Shuttle was cancelled by President George W. Bush in 2004. The following year, nasa announced the vehicle’s successor—the Constellation programme. This was tasked with completing the International Space Station and returning humans to the Moon by 2020 and Mars at some point thereafter. By 2010, Constellation’s costs had ballooned so much that President Barack Obama decided to cancel it. The contracts for the programme’s development, however, had already been doled out to various aerospace companies, as well as some nasa institutes. In what Lori Garver, a former nasa official, calls “the relentless momentum of the status quo”, the sls programme was created in 2010 to ensure that contracts from the defunct Constellation programme kept going.
Developing the sls has cost American taxpayers around $23bn in the past decade. Over the same period, the commercial-launch industry has boomed—Elon Musk’s SpaceX, for instance, has shown it is possible to build reusable rockets that can send astronauts and cargo into space for around $50m per launch, far less than the projected $2bn (or more) for each ride aboard the sls. Within the next six months, SpaceX will put Starship into orbit. Its biggest rocket yet, the heavy-lift vehicle will be able to carry similar payloads into space as the sls for, Mr Musk reckons, just a few million dollars a launch. Given the increasing competition from companies such as Blue Origin, owned by Jeff Bezos, it is hard to see a role for nasa’s bloated sls.
Pork barrels may be good politics, but they are lousy ways to advance technology. If Congress cared about space science, the rocket programme would therefore be scrapped. nasa would concentrate instead on defining the mission architecture for the Artemis programme and buy in transport where needed. This was an idea floated in 2019 by Jim Bridenstine, then the nasa administrator, who also argued that private rockets could get Artemis to the Moon sooner than the sls.
Likewise, President Joe Biden’s administration should aim to target nasa’s efforts at the things only it can bring about and for which there is not already a market: high-risk scientific research; technology for space missions that push the limits of current knowledge; or finding better ways to understand and monitor global threats, such as climate change. Just a fraction of the $23bn spent on the sls could make an enormous difference.
Were nasa stripped of pork, it might slip down Congress’s list of priorities and hence suffer budget cuts. But if lawmakers are not interested in a rational approach to space, so be it. There is no God-given reason for nasa to be as large as it is.
It is telling that the seeds for America’s flourishing commercial space industry were sown by the same nasa administration that got lumbered with the sls. In 2010 Ms Garver and her colleagues decided to accept a compromise with the sls in order to eke out a small percentage of the Constellation money to finance their real goal: to support private-launch startups and drastically reduce the cost of getting people into low-Earth orbit. That bet paid off handsomely. SpaceX, for example, would have got nowhere without it. How perverse for nasa to fail to reap the benefits of that gamble and for Congress to insist on sticking to the old ways.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/08/28/nasas-newest-rocket-is-a-colossal-waste-of-money?
NASA LIVE: Artemis 1 Flyby Of The Moon!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4zi57zu5wI&ab_channel=SpaceVideos
Kevin Macleod gets a lot of gigs.
Orion soars around the Moon with a lonely Earth in the distance
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/11/orion-soars-around-the-moon-with-a-lonely-earth-in-the-distance/amp/
Witty Rejoinder said:
Orion soars around the Moon with a lonely Earth in the distance
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/11/orion-soars-around-the-moon-with-a-lonely-earth-in-the-distance/amp/
The lovely blue planet, God chose well
yeah, deep man.
NASA Sets Coverage of Orion’s Historic Moon Mission Return, Splashdown
NASA will provide live coverage of the Artemis I uncrewed Orion spacecrafts return flyby of the Moon on Monday, Dec. 5, as well as its return to Earth on Sunday, Dec. 11.
NASA will begin streaming live coverage of the Artemis I Orion spacecraft’s return flyby of the Moon from midnight tomorrow night AEST.
https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive
Bubblecar said:
NASA will begin streaming live coverage of the Artemis I Orion spacecraft’s return flyby of the Moon from midnight tomorrow night AEST.https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive
….actually 1am (daylight savings).
Bubblecar said:
Bubblecar said:
NASA will begin streaming live coverage of the Artemis I Orion spacecraft’s return flyby of the Moon from midnight tomorrow night AEST.https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive
….actually 1am (daylight savings).
…that’s 1am 6/12/22.
Bubblecar said:
Bubblecar said:
Bubblecar said:
NASA will begin streaming live coverage of the Artemis I Orion spacecraft’s return flyby of the Moon from midnight tomorrow night AEST.https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive
….actually 1am (daylight savings).
…that’s 1am 6/12/22.
BUMP
Under 2 hours to go.
T-minus 1 x minute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21×5lGlDOfg
On our way but this could take a long time.
Still thousands of miles away from the moon, but it’s slooowly getting bigger.
The commentator just called the moon “the Earth”.
It was an enjoyable flyby but took several hours, so patience was required.
Here’s a random snap with crater Kepler prominent.
Bubblecar said:
It was an enjoyable flyby but took several hours, so patience was required.Here’s a random snap with crater Kepler prominent.
On our way home with crescent moon and crescent Earth.
Bubblecar said:
It was an enjoyable flyby but took several hours, so patience was required.Here’s a random snap with crater Kepler prominent.
A little further east, crater Marius and the Marius Hills.
Bubblecar said:
Bubblecar said:
It was an enjoyable flyby but took several hours, so patience was required.Here’s a random snap with crater Kepler prominent.
A little further east, crater Marius and the Marius Hills.
I have wondered what the indicated speed is referenced to. For example the day or two after launch, the speed was showing as something like 70 mph, but the distance to the Moon was decreasing at most like a mile every three or four seconds.
Anyway, great photos.
Spiny Norman said:
Bubblecar said:
Bubblecar said:
It was an enjoyable flyby but took several hours, so patience was required.Here’s a random snap with crater Kepler prominent.
A little further east, crater Marius and the Marius Hills.
I have wondered what the indicated speed is referenced to. For example the day or two after launch, the speed was showing as something like 70 mph, but the distance to the Moon was decreasing at most like a mile every three or four seconds.
Anyway, great photos.
It was going at around 3.5 thousand MPH last night, ticking off at about a mile a second.
Spiny Norman said:
Bubblecar said:
Bubblecar said:
It was an enjoyable flyby but took several hours, so patience was required.Here’s a random snap with crater Kepler prominent.
A little further east, crater Marius and the Marius Hills.
I have wondered what the indicated speed is referenced to. For example the day or two after launch, the speed was showing as something like 70 mph, but the distance to the Moon was decreasing at most like a mile every three or four seconds.
Anyway, great photos.
I’ve asked Scott Manley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFIvKSVRtZ0
Bubblecar said:
Spiny Norman said:
Bubblecar said:A little further east, crater Marius and the Marius Hills.
I have wondered what the indicated speed is referenced to. For example the day or two after launch, the speed was showing as something like 70 mph, but the distance to the Moon was decreasing at most like a mile every three or four seconds.
Anyway, great photos.
It was going at around 3.5 thousand MPH last night, ticking off at about a mile a second.
Yeah that makes sense.
ChrispenEvan said:
Spiny Norman said:
Bubblecar said:A little further east, crater Marius and the Marius Hills.
I have wondered what the indicated speed is referenced to. For example the day or two after launch, the speed was showing as something like 70 mph, but the distance to the Moon was decreasing at most like a mile every three or four seconds.
Anyway, great photos.
I’ve asked Scott Manley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFIvKSVRtZ0
I would imagine they use radar to calculate speed so referenced from the surface of the Earth.
NASA’s Artemis I Mission Successfully Returns from the Moon
After a 26-day journey that took it to lunar orbit and back, the uncrewed Orion spacecraft splashed down in the Pacific Ocean on Sunday afternoon, paving the way for future astronaut voyages to Earth’s satellite
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasas-artemis-i-mission-successfully-returns-from-the-moon/
Repeat of live coverage – splashdown footage from about 1:35:00
NASA’s Artemis I Mission Splashes Down in Pacific Ocean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzZPzmMtQA8
Bubblecar said:
NASA’s Artemis I Mission Successfully Returns from the MoonAfter a 26-day journey that took it to lunar orbit and back, the uncrewed Orion spacecraft splashed down in the Pacific Ocean on Sunday afternoon, paving the way for future astronaut voyages to Earth’s satellite
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasas-artemis-i-mission-successfully-returns-from-the-moon/
Repeat of live coverage – splashdown footage from about 1:35:00
NASA’s Artemis I Mission Splashes Down in Pacific Ocean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzZPzmMtQA8
Those days flew past
Bubblecar said:
NASA’s Artemis I Mission Successfully Returns from the MoonAfter a 26-day journey that took it to lunar orbit and back, the uncrewed Orion spacecraft splashed down in the Pacific Ocean on Sunday afternoon, paving the way for future astronaut voyages to Earth’s satellite
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasas-artemis-i-mission-successfully-returns-from-the-moon/
Repeat of live coverage – splashdown footage from about 1:35:00
NASA’s Artemis I Mission Splashes Down in Pacific Ocean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzZPzmMtQA8
Was that 26 days ago? My, how time flies.
