I’m leaving this here for whenever that’ll happen. 😆
98.7KVIEWS
50REPLIES
106APPRECIATES
20ACTIVE PEOPLE
04-13-2026LAST POST
I’m leaving this here for whenever that’ll happen. 😆
Some interesting facts:
- "Artemis" in greek mythology is the twin sister to "Apollo"
- The Apollo missions, adjusted for inflation, cost roughly $300 billion. NASA is anticipating the Artemis missions to cost roughly $100 billion.
- The Artemis Orion spacecraft is moving at roughly half the speed of the original Apollo spacecrafts were (2,500 mph vs. 5k mph) - the reason? Apollo missions used a direct trajactory with massive fuel burns to get to the moon quickly. Artemis is using looping trajectories to build speed without the need for massive fuel burn to get to the moon. Because the Orion spacecraft is larger and heavier, it'll benefit a lot more by using this sustainable trajectory vs. a straight shot.
- A lot of folks ask "why now?" in regards to going back to the moon and why we haven't been back in so long. Well this isn't the first time we have tried going back to the moon. In the early 2000s George Bush signed an order for us to return to the moon by 2020 (project constellation). That was later cancelled by Obama due to the program going significantly over budget and multiple delays (it was severely underfunded to begin with). So how are we managing this now? Well there's a renewed motivation - potential for water at the south pole of the moon - and the more likely culprit - a space race with China as they've indicated a goal to get humans on the moon by 2030. There's also interest in using the moon as a base for eventual manned missions to Mars (hope that happens in my lifetime).
This is all fascinating stuff. There's a livestream set up on youtube, as well as a tracker showing the Orion's current position:
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis-ii/arow/
They aren't even landing in the moon to explore / perhaps expand knowledge / discover something we didn't know. They are just looping around and coming back. Why spend so much money on that?
Watching The World Burn wroteIt is an incremental test of the SLS rocket and Orion capsule. Back during the Apollo days, they did several incremental tests before Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took their famous stroll. Apollo-8 flew more or less this same mission at Christmas, 1968. It was the first time that a crewed Apollo capsule left the relative safety of low Earth orbit and went around the moon.They aren't even landing in the moon to explore / perhaps expand knowledge / discover something we didn't know. They are just looping around and coming back. Why spend so much money on that?
Ironically, the Apollo-8 mission was a last-minute change of plans because Grumman had not delivered the needed lunar lander yet that they were supposed to test in Earth orbit. Today, Artemis-II is doing the same exact thing because SpaceX does not have the new lunar lander ready yet. As a matter of fact, SpaceX is sooooo far behind that NASA just recently awarded a backup lander contract to Bezos and Blue Origin.
As for the question about if this is even necessary, remember that Boeing's first un-crewed Starliner launch had serious software/computer issues, and never made it to the space station because it wound up in the wrong orbit! Their first crewed Starliner test flight to the space station ended up stranding the two astronauts there for months until a SpaceX capsule could return them, thanks to maneuvering thrusters failing during the docking. That was all just trying to get a new capsule up to the ISS at around 250 miles. The moon is about 250,000 miles away, and this is the first crewed flight of the SLS/Orion stack...and only the second flight of this rocket package total.
So, while the mission isn't landing on the moon, it *is* expanding their knowledge about the rocket and also carrying some Canadian ballast in one of the seats so that our friends to the north can say that one of them has also been around the moon.....
Watching The World Burn wroteI think private industry will be the next entity to land people on the moon. And the south pole area will be the target. Yes, there is ice there (and hence water), but more importantly, there is helium-3, which is crucial for fusion energy. The goal is to beat the Chinese to the south pole before they claim it and defend it like sovereign territory. Lunar mining is going to be a thing in the not too distant future.I'll be honest - I don't understand the point or why there is the excitement.
They aren't even landing in the moon to explore / perhaps expand knowledge / discover something we didn't know. They are just looping around and coming back. Why spend so much money on that?
M_Six wroteThe original government moondoggle I]sic[/I called for the SLS/Orion to ferry astronauts to a non-existent space station orbiting beyond the moon. From there, they would board a lunar lander made by SpaceX for the trip to/from the moon's surface. Once back at the non-existent space station, they would climb back into the Orion capsule for the trip back to Earth.I think private industry will be the next entity to land people on the moon.
SpaceX's lunar lander proposal that was accepted by NASA is essentially one of their in-development Starship rockets with landing legs attached. You know, the one that has suffered a few rapid unscheduled disassemblies (aka: explosions) in early sub-orbital testing.
Someone at NASA apparently realized that building a non-existent space station orbiting the moon that really didn't serve any required purpose in the Artemis program was a waste, so they eliminated that step and now just have the Orion capsule docking with the SpaceX lander in orbit for the trip to/from the moon's surface.
With NASA's current administrator being a person who paid to fly on a SpaceX private launch, I am pretty sure that this will be the last SLS/Orion launch that ever happens. SpaceX needs to send their lunar lander to lunar orbit to meet the Orion capsule, so why not just dump the recycled Space Shuttle junk that the SLS rocket is made of and just book a one-seat ride direct from Earth to the moon's surface and back on the SpaceX lander?
Privatization of space has already shown to be financially beneficial, with SpaceX able to send astronauts to the space station on the Falcon-9/Dragon stack that cost less than half of the government welfare that NASA paid to Boeing for the Starlemon development that is yet to complete a single flight to the ISS successfully.
The current race to the moon is between SpaceX, Bezos/Blue Origin, and China. With Musk launching the SpaceX stock IPO in a few weeks, I'd put my money on them to be first to land.....
) I just hope SpaceX and or BO get to the south pole before the Chinese.
On one hand its truly amazing to send humans into space let alone plan to land on another planet. A absolute testimony to human imagination, spirit, effort, commitment, diplomacy and collaboration.
On the other, typical ego driven human behavior. One race trying to beat another spending copious amounts of money on being first, biggest, fastest, dominating etc.
Science got humans into space, but apparently its no good when it comes to the planets climate and eco systems. Humans have already polluted space with copious amounts of litter and waste. Is it just humans working hard on making the next garden of eden another dump? I can't help but wish all that spirit that got humans into space was better used on keeping this planet more habitable.
jaffles wroteThis time around it's all about commercial gain. Mining for precious metals and helium-3. If/when it becomes common to travel to the moon, it'll also become another reason to fight amongst ourselves.I find it truly fascinating and sadly frustrating. Perhaps conflicting.
On one hand its truly amazing to send humans into space let alone plan to land on another planet. A absolute testimony to human imagination, spirit, effort, commitment, diplomacy and collaboration.
On the other, typical ego driven human behavior. One race trying to beat another spending copious amounts of money on being first, biggest, fastest, dominating etc.
Science got humans into space, but apparently its no good when it comes to the planets climate and eco systems. Humans have already polluted space with copious amounts of litter and waste. Is it just humans working hard on making the next garden of eden another dump? I can't help but wish all that spirit that got humans into space was better used on keeping this planet more habitable.
Back during the Apollo program, NASA put the capsule into a slow "pig roast" roll during the lunar transit phases of their missions to evenly heat the entire command/service module. Has the brain drain at NASA gone so far that none of the current engineers remembered this important thing but some nobody on the Internet like me does?????
vreihen16 wroteI don't think it's a case of them not remembering. The Orion is quite different than the Apollo spacecraft. Apollo needed a constant passive roll because of limited active thermal control and insulation.Another day closer to the moon, another toilet problem. The unine/liquid dump pipe froze on the Artemis-II crapsule yesterday. NASA's solution was to barrel roll the Orion capsule, so that the dump port was facing the sun so it could thaw itself.
Back during the Apollo program, NASA put the capsule into a slow "pig roast" roll during the lunar transit phases of their missions to evenly heat the entire command/service module. Has the brain drain at NASA gone so far that none of the current engineers remembered this important thing but some nobody on the Internet like me does?????
Orion has much more sophisticated systems with active and targeted thermal management so it (in theory) doesn't need to continuously roll to regulate temps. The positioning of Orion also matters more than it did on the Apollo space craft - Orion uses solar panels that, in a constant roll could cause power fluctuations.
All this being said - I'd say they drew on experience to know that they could position it to thaw out the line. So it's not a case of forgotten - just a case of differing tech and needs.
wtwo3 wroteYou bring up an important question that remains unanswered.A lot of folks ask "why now?" in regards to going back to the moon and why we haven't been back in so long.
Why now - not clear. Other than the fact that ISS is going end-of-life (and motivation behind it went stale decades ago), NASA needed to do something. Anything.
And revisiting the Moon was as creative of an answer as they managed to come up with and get funded.
There is really no other reason.
The project is kinda cool, though it lacks the technological clout that Apollo represented ~50 years ago.
wtwo3 wroteSimilar to how Apollo's aim was to get to the Moon before the Russians did, Artemis re-boot is to do it before the Chinese got around to it?Well this isn't the first time we have tried going back to the moon. In the early 2000s George Bush signed an order for us to return to the moon by 2020 (project constellation). That was later cancelled by Obama due to the program going significantly over budget and multiple delays (it was severely underfunded to begin with). So how are we managing this now? Well there's a renewed motivation - potential for water at the south pole of the moon - and the more likely culprit - a space race with China as they've indicated a goal to get humans on the moon by 2030.
We are sort-of guessing here, because neither NASA nor the last few administrations ever coherently articulated why we are doing Artemis. Other than it's "something" NASA could do other than ISS.
Are we still doing the Gateway station?
M_Six wroteNot without a business case, they wont.I think private industry will be the next entity to land people on the moon.
The only entity that has enough tech to do it is SpaceX, and they have shown little interest in any of this. Beyond whatever it is that NASA pays them to deliver.
Musk is into Mars, and orbital data centers, as of late.
M_Six wrotethere is helium-3, which is crucial for fusion energy. The goal is to beat the Chinese to the south pole before they claim it and defend it like sovereign territory. Lunar mining is going to be a thing in the not too distant future.
M_Six wroteThe only problem with the above statement is that US has shown minimal interest in fusion reactor research. While fusion reactor physics are starting to produce marginal net positive energy gain, the commercial-grade fusion reactors are decades away. At best.This time around it's all about commercial gain. Mining for precious metals and helium-3. If/when it becomes common to travel to the moon, it'll also become another reason to fight amongst ourselves.
Suggesting that US needs lunar fuel for the reactors US is not seriously pursuing is a bit of a stretch.
Net-net - I am happy that we (the US) is doing something no-one else can pull off, other than bombing 3rd world countries.
Even if the reasons for Artemis are poorly communicated or even remotely realistic.
a
vreihen16 wroteCode brown?Another day closer to the moon, another toilet problem. The unine/liquid dump pipe froze on the Artemis-II crapsule yesterday. NASA's solution was to barrel roll the Orion capsule, so that the dump port was facing the sun so it could thaw itself.
Back during the Apollo program, NASA put the capsule into a slow "pig roast" roll during the lunar transit phases of their missions to evenly heat the entire command/service module. Has the brain drain at NASA gone so far that none of the current engineers remembered this important thing but some nobody on the Internet like me does?????
burned shit in Vietnam and it could bring tears to your eyes. At least
we could move up wind in most cases.
afadeev wroteOk, a crazy thought just occurred to me, and it's probably half baked, but how does a country / nation start? Specifically, and I could see this appealing to Musk's ego, if he had the tech and could settle on the moon, what's to prevent him from claiming it as his own / staking a claim?Not without a business case, they wont.
The only entity that has enough tech to do it is SpaceX, and they have shown little interest in any of this. Beyond whatever it is that NASA pays them to deliver.
Musk is into Mars, and orbital data centers, as of late.
Kicking off international space laws and who can claim what. Moon is far more easy to get to than Mars, and could be a base point to get to Mars (don't have to break the same gravitational pull to get to space from the Moon, etc if you can build. Obviously far fetched, but say he could pull it off and create his own country called Muskrat or something. Settles on the moon and claims a decent chunk of it as settled and that he owns it. What would other countries do? Space war? Maybe. Be interesting though no?
Watching The World Burn wroteIs this the premise to Star Wars?Ok, a crazy thought just occurred to me, and it's probably half baked, but how does a country / nation start? Specifically, and I could see this appealing to Musk's ego, if he had the tech and could settle on the moon, what's to prevent him from claiming it as his own / staking a claim?
Kicking off international space laws and who can claim what. Moon is far more easy to get to than Mars, and could be a base point to get to Mars (don't have to break the same gravitational pull to get to space from the Moon, etc if you can build. Obviously far fetched, but say he could pull it off and create his own country called Muskrat or something. Settles on the moon and claims a decent chunk of it as settled and that he owns it. What would other countries do? Space war? Maybe. Be interesting though no?
Watching The World Burn wroteWho's to say Humans once didn't occupy the moon, Earth is the new claim because look what they did to the moon?Ok, a crazy thought just occurred to me, and it's probably half baked, but how does a country / nation start? Specifically, and I could see this appealing to Musk's ego, if he had the tech and could settle on the moon, what's to prevent him from claiming it as his own / staking a claim?
Kicking off international space laws and who can claim what. Moon is far more easy to get to than Mars, and could be a base point to get to Mars (don't have to break the same gravitational pull to get to space from the Moon, etc if you can build. Obviously far fetched, but say he could pull it off and create his own country called Muskrat or something. Settles on the moon and claims a decent chunk of it as settled and that he owns it. What would other countries do? Space war? Maybe. Be interesting though no?
Who's to say humans didn't evolve from bacteria in water droplets that were picked up via an asteroid before it hit the earth.
Who to say about anything in this funny ol world. But one can be sure Donny is out of control.
wtwo3 wroteDunno, been a few decades since I watched that. Is it? Repressed memories maybe?Is this the premise to Star Wars?
Someday they will probably see humans being fired into space all the time by private companies and I hope they tell their kids "I remember the first one......"
They think it is like a car ride. I try and explain that one of a trillion things could go wrong and they would just float off into space and we would have NO HOPE of saving them. None. It would keep going forever with dead bodies in it till the end of time.
It really sank in with me when I heard Elon say "if we are not trying to get Humans to another planet - we are just waiting to go extinct" That is 100% right and I never really thought of it that way.
Now if Humans should be allowed to infect another planet or not is another questions, but at least the moon and Mars are already mostly "dead", so we can't fuck up as much shit as we do here. LOL
