Space Launch System - Orion

[Simpo Two]

ChocolateFrog said:

There's none of the excitement of Apollo or the space shuttle.

I think in part that's because the media don't cover it. They're much more interested in what the Prime Minister had for breakfast, and endless interviews with people complaining about things. That passes for journalism.

Mostly people just want to play with their phones and say 'environment' a lot. They probably don't even know what year the first moon landing was.

[Toaster]

MiniMan64 said:

Smiljan said:

I give up, the Elon fanboys are everywhere.

This is not NPE, there’s no need for ridiculous comments like that.

It is however an objective fact that as great as it is to see the SLS finally launch and I’m sure do what it was designed to do many many years ago, that it is ‘old’ tech in terms of rocket launches and things are moving on.

You can deride Elon (he doesn’t exactly help himself) and Space X all you want but they are the ones building the lander for NASA, Artemis is only the delivery boy.

im with Smiljan Nasa has been to the moon before it is easy to deride Musk as he is only riding on the shoulders of Giants who made the Apollo Luna landing possible the real hero is Thomas Kelly its so easy to hold Musk and space X up as innovators when they have all the computing power, modern materials and engineering techniques NASA and the team back in the day could only have dreamt of so a little respect of those who have gone before should be acknowledged. Space X is also NSA funded.....and I suspect a lot of intellectual materials have been shared by NASA and others to help space X get where it is. I cant find the links but a few years back there were competitions being held for vertical landing and take off rockets just as autonomous vehicles had been. Musk has been successful in a commercial sense on what developments have been about I am not sure he has invented stuff from scratch, possibly improved but he has had an awful lot of funding to do this.

[Dog Star]

Simpo Two said:

You're right, it's not sustainable (ie could be carried on indefinitely). But do we want to think 'Yes we could do this amazing thing like send a man to Mars and bring him back safely to Earth but we can't because it's not sustainable'? I hope not.

You misunderstand me - it can and hopefully will be done in the not too distant future - but it’s not going to be using rehashed old tech on disposable vehicles.

There’s a load of people seemingly jumping on me for saying that SLS is obsolete. Prove me wrong.

The analogy of throwing an aeroplane away every time you fly it is totally valid.

This stuff can all be done now (well almost) for a fraction of the cost and better.

However if this SLS helps kick start and /or pique public interest then fine by me.

Anyway - back to today - it appears that the craft does have quite a few cameras attached so we can see it in real time. The lunar flybys should look spectacular.

[McGee_22]

Does anyone know of a mission progress 'tracker' at all?

[Leithen]

McGee_22 said:

Does anyone know of a mission progress 'tracker' at all?

https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-1

[jingars]

McGee_22 said:

Does anyone know of a mission progress 'tracker' at all?

https://www.nasa.gov/specials/trackartemis/

[McGee_22]

jingars said:

McGee_22 said:

Does anyone know of a mission progress 'tracker' at all?

https://www.nasa.gov/specials/trackartemis/

Ta!

[RizzoTheRat]

Anyone happen to know what the TWR or acceleration profile are? It's amazing how slow the iniital climb seemed to be. I'm sure I remember reading that at engine start Apollo's TWR was pretty close to 1 so a really gentle start but building quickly as fuel burned off.

[Eric Mc]

I thought that the climb rate was slow - compared to the Shuttle. But it was certainly very impressive.

All looking good so far. They've just fired the Service Module engine for the first time. The burn lasted for 30 seconds and seems to have gone well.

[Fundoreen]

Glad its going ahead and they are realistic about figuring out how to survive on the moon before sending someone to their doom on a mission to mars.
Buzz was probably overexcited when he said what he did in the past.

[SpudLink]

[14]

Dog Star said:

You misunderstand me - it can and hopefully will be done in the not too distant future - but it’s not going to be using rehashed old tech on disposable vehicles.

There’s a load of people seemingly jumping on me for saying that SLS is obsolete. Prove me wrong.

The analogy of throwing an aeroplane away every time you fly it is totally valid.

This stuff can all be done now (well almost) for a fraction of the cost and better.

However if this SLS helps kick start and /or pique public interest then fine by me.

Anyway - back to today - it appears that the craft does have quite a few cameras attached so we can see it in real time. The lunar flybys should look spectacular.

The Artemis program started before SpaceX started reusing their first stages, so it’s a bit unfair to blame NASA for not reusing the first stage. Yes the cost of Artemis is far too high, and whoever suggested it would be a good idea to use parts from the Shuttle to make Artemis cheaper definitely didn’t think about the engineering challenges that would ensue.

There is nothing else that can put 100 tons into orbit, or even go to the moon and back. Starship won’t even be able to go to the moon by itself.

[Eric Mc]

It's about capability - not efficiency. We have needed a 100 ton launch capability ever since the Saturn V was retired. We can have this with Artemis. It's not perfect, but it exists and, for the moment, seems to be working.

[Beati Dogu]

Well I’m glad to see it launched successfully after all that time. I wasn’t sure it would. It must have been quite a sight for those in the area.

It’s 50 years this December since the last Apollo launch, Apollo 17.

[troc]

Simpo Two said:

ChocolateFrog said:

There's none of the excitement of Apollo or the space shuttle.

I think in part that's because the media don't cover it. They're much more interested in what the Prime Minister had for breakfast, and endless interviews with people complaining about things. That passes for journalism.

Mostly people just want to play with their phones and say 'environment' a lot. They probably don't even know what year the first moon landing was.

I was extremely unimpressed with the lack of coverage on BBC.

[MartG]

[Simpo Two]

Dog Star said:

Simpo Two said:

You're right, it's not sustainable (ie could be carried on indefinitely). But do we want to think 'Yes we could do this amazing thing like send a man to Mars and bring him back safely to Earth but we can't because it's not sustainable'? I hope not.

You misunderstand me - it can and hopefully will be done in the not too distant future - but it’s not going to be using rehashed old tech on disposable vehicles.

There’s a load of people seemingly jumping on me for saying that SLS is obsolete. Prove me wrong.

Well, I would say to you - what 'new tech' is going to get 100 tons into orbit and thence to the moon and Mars sustainably?

troc said:

I was extremely unimpressed with the lack of coverage on BBC.

Yes, it was about 20 minutes in, after a lengthy piece on whether a politician might have bullied somebody (which these days could be as simple as asking for a cup of coffee without saying 'please')

Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 16th November 21:52

[Smiljan]

Some great comments on the thread again after the muppets moaning about poor camera footage, waste of rockets and even accusing NASA of leaving it out in a storm on purpose so it would get damaged have left.

I don’t get why those folks just pour negativity on this entire program without actually taking any time and effort to see what it’s doing and why this particular vehicle is being used now.

SpaceX are partners in the same mission program - it’s not a case of one of the other.

Amazing stuff from some extremely competent people in their fields and to me at least ace to see in my lifetime progress being made again towards putting humans on moons and planets away from our pale blue dot.

[Florida_Man]

https://youtu.be/Uuf-SRjkKS0
Absolutely love the sound, not my video. I was watching from the Max Brewer Bridge

[hidetheelephants]

ChocolateFrog said:

Rockets should be subbed out. Stick to building satellites, enormous space telescopes, space stations etc.

They are; NASA don't build them, just sticks the stages together and lights the blue touch paper. NASA don't build many of those other things either.