Forum menu
And it’s away great to see the launch live.
I’d missed that this was happening now until my mate messaged.
Just rewound Sky to the launch 😎
Very smooth countdown and launch. I'm remembering 15 year old me watching Apollo 8.
I watched it. Seemed reasonably smooth. I wonder if it'll be visible from the UK over the coming nights?
Yawn! 🥱
No boost back, no amazing on board cameras, no landing.
I'm not entirely sure why the BBC are giving it so much coverage really. 😬
At least nothing went 💥
Stayed up to watch this. Awesome. I actually remember my dad getting me up to watch the moon landing. This looked the same.
I watched NASA TV on YouTube. Launch coverage was meh considering how much experience has been gained in videoing rocket launches in the last decade.
I didn't watch it live but I'll be all in to watch the moon landing launch.
The world a bit fudged and I see this as a bit of optimism for the future personally.
Anyway, it's to do with science and space so I'm always going to be suckered in. 😁
Can't sleep so might bung on Interstellar!
Yeah awesome launch but the actual "launch show" was piss poor. I don't mind that much, I'm there for the big firework not the presentation but it should be better
I'm not sure if I've got this right but it seems from the communication so far they are having difficulty getting the bog to flush.
I'm not sure if I've got this right but it seems from the communication so far they are having difficulty getting the bog to flush.
Few bits and bobs not working but nothing too serious apparently.
Mind you, 4 people in a camper van, in space, without a working bog might get pretty old fast.
'Houston, we need a bogbrush.'
Username checks out.
Id me willing to help out but the cost of fuel to get to to them at the moment is a pig.😁
Can't believe how many people I have spoken to DO NOT know that this is happening!!!
Can't believe how many people I have spoken to DO NOT know that this is happening!!!
It's the first launch that I've ever actually sat down and watched. I was gobsmacked by the status updates and how fast that thing accelerated and accelerated and then accelerated some more. Here's to a successful mission and return to earth.
By tomorrow it'll be claimed as being an AI hoax launch anyway.Its an odd world.
My Reform inclined brother in law has clearly spent his recent retirement going down rabbit holes, as he announced on FB last night that the moon landings must gave been fake or there wouldn't be all this hype about going there after a further 50 years of technological development.
The only conspiracy theory I have is that the launch distracted from Trump getting a hard time in the Supreme Court. I'm just grateful it was successful.
Camera forgot to tilt on the main shot!
Shame that.
Impressive so far and I'm excited.
I watched NASA TV on YouTube. Launch coverage was meh considering how much experience has been gained in videoing rocket launches in the last decade.
The NASA multimedia was like a public service version of Space X. They still had lots of cameras but they were laggy and a bit rubbish. We are used to drone shots, multiple camera angles, on board live feeds, real time graphics. NASA tried and came up a bit short. Which is a real shame. The feed I was watching didn't even show the rocket leaving the launch pad. It also seems to take off at T - 4 seconds.
But then should be be surprised, I was looking on Flight Radar and NASA were flying a Canberra for relays. Its a 63 year old aircraft!
Impressive stuff though we are spoiled by the coverage from SpaceX and their launches with fancy graphics and engine/fuel status etc. Hopefully a nice uneventful 10 days reaching the moon and coming back now.
I was waiting for the boosters to come in and land once they'd separated and remembered it wasn't that kind of launch. I still remember watching the Falcon Heavy's first launch (or the first where they got the boosters back) and being struck by the synchronised landing.
The footage of the launch from a plane is mind blowing.
I wasn't overly impressed with the footage seeing what we've had from Space X etc. My mind blowing moments, previously, was when the rockets 'landed' on their own, proper 'Flash Gordon' moment. Maybe we'll get some edited coverage.
Impressive stuff though we are spoiled by the coverage from SpaceX and their launches with fancy graphics and engine/fuel status etc. Hopefully a nice uneventful 10 days reaching the moon and coming back now.
I was waiting for the boosters to come in and land once they'd separated and remembered it wasn't that kind of launch. I still remember watching the Falcon Heavy's first launch (or the first where they got the boosters back) and being struck by the synchronised landing.
IIRC from the broadcast aren't the booster the same as they used on the Shuttle?
With all the advancement that Space-X has made I can't believe that NASA basically came up with a Saturn V with some left over shuttle boosters strapped to it.....
Not a massive advancement for 50 years....
I'm not sure if I've got this right but it seems from the communication so far they are having difficulty getting the bog to flush.
The Wolowitz Zero-Gravity Human Waste Disposal Distribution System....
Er, not that exciting really, so an understand people not being bothered. Going to look at the Moon? Moon landing will be better, but what is it all for?
Can't believe how many people I have spoken to DO NOT know that this is happening!!!
Maybe they have more important things to be thinking about or concerning themselves with.
It also seems to take off at T - 4 seconds.
Commentary in the lead up to launch said that the rocket is effectively on autopilot for launch. It reaches a certain point in the sequence and the rocket takes over with no connection too the actual countdown. Mission control took control over the rocket once it was a minute or two into its flight.
Moon landing will be better, but what is it all for?
Control of resources, at a guess.
And an easier launchpad (sorry) for the rest of the Solar System. Earth is a difficult place to leave, the moon is easier, so if you can form a more permanent place there to launch from (with the ability to create/store/etc fuel and components) it is a win for humanity.
But the cynical part of me says it is control of resources.
we are spoiled by the coverage from SpaceX and their launches with fancy graphics and engine/fuel status etc.
This..... there isn't really any excuse not to do something better than they did
The footage of the launch from a plane is mind blowing.
Not seen the SpaceX drone footage then?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/o8IJVCacYDc
With all the advancement that Space-X has made I can't believe that NASA basically came up with a Saturn V with some left over shuttle boosters strapped to it.....
blame US pork barrel politics for that. It’s not about what should be built, it’s about what can be funded. And not cancelled by tge next administration
The plumber has been and the crew can now go.
I enjoyed the simplicity of the coverage (i watched on the Beeb). The very fact that they were doing it was impressive enough.
we are spoiled by the coverage from SpaceX and their launches with fancy graphics and engine/fuel status etc.
Or were blinded by the "look over here, don't look at the hands" graphics to miss the fact that space X just puts things in low orbit and can't in fact do anything as complex as Artemis?
IIRC from the broadcast aren't the booster the same as they used on the Shuttle?
Not identical but very similiar- they reuse past-used shuttle booster casings but are bigger and have a bunch of new tech. And the main engines are reused shuttle RS25s. Ironically all this development and they've basically invented a soviet Energia 🙂
Whole thing is a procurement disaster, but that's NASA, every project has to appeal to the right congressmen, put investment in the right companies etc. They're not really building a moon mission, they have to build a special interests fellating machine and then hope a rocket comes out at the end.
On the other hand they've also backed Starship for this and Starship continues to not exist and is now the biggest risk for the entire Artemis project, since they need both SLS and Starship for the landings. So they're simultaneously both dependent on future tech but also spending a fortune on old stuff and if both don't work nothing works.
So they're simultaneously both dependent on future tech but also spending a fortune on old stuff and if both don't work nothing works.
Was it John Glenn who spoke about a machine made of thousands of components all supplied by the lowest bidder? Big govt projects are all the same, be it installing a pedestrian crossing or firing people hundreds of thousands of miles across space.
Coming up in the next couple of hours is the TLI.
space X just puts things in low orbit and can't in fact do anything as complex as Artemis?
So far Artemis has only taken off, everything is disposable, it cannot land anything and costs $4 billion per launch.
A Falcon Heavy can deliver crew to the ISS, returns most of the rocket to earth for reuse multiple times and costs about $120 million per launch. That's about 3% of the cost of a single Artemis launch!
In what sense is Artemis "better"?
I'm not sure if I've got this right but it seems from the communication so far they are having difficulty getting the bog to flush.
Could be worse, it could be an aircraft carrier with a 1000+ crew and the toilet systems aren’t working, so someone sets fire to the laundry… 💩
I missed the first lunar landing in ‘69, I was on holiday and the only TV was in the bar of the caravan site, and I was too young to go in and watch it! 😖
Listening to 13minutes to the moon podcast. One of the presenters parents both flew on the shuttles. One of the engines on one of her parents shuttle was reused on Artemis 1.
I thought they were the same boosters but remapped up to 109% but then lost the ability to recover them.
Just read that the $30mn toilet is working. Seems better than Apollo when they had to tape a bag to their bum (bbc article)
I suppose it’s impressive but nothing that wasn’t accomplished 50 years ago, I guess we will now enter a big dick swinging contest between countries (and the tech bros) that will offer very little benefit to us.
Falcon Heavy and Artemis aren’t really comparable. Even in full disposable mode FH delivers around half the payload to lunar orbit that Artemis does. In reusable mode it’s less than a 1/3. Falcon Heavy’s launch costs are heavily subsidised by the NRO. Without them, cost would be closer to $300m per launch. Yes, that still makes Artemis expensive, but you’re not just paying for the rocket.
With all the advancement that Space-X has made I can't believe that NASA basically came up with a Saturn V with some left over shuttle boosters strapped to it.....
Not a massive advancement for 50 years....
It's always going to be basically the same thing though isn't it? Sure SpaceX landing the stages is amazing, but rockets are the only game in town and they are what they are, basically the same as they were in WW2 and even further back.
With all the advancement that Space-X has made I can't believe that NASA basically came up with a Saturn V with some left over shuttle boosters strapped to it.....
If SpaceX were building a rocket to take a human cargo to the moon and back (alive) what would it look like, when would it be ready and how much would it cost?
[quote data-userid="56836" data-postid="13718154"
If SpaceX were building a rocket to take a human cargo to the moon and back (alive) what would it look like, when would it be ready and how much would it cost?
They are, Starship HLS is the lander part of the Artemis project. As to when would it be ready, it is scheduled to have its first test flight in, uh, 2025.
They are, Starship HLS is the lander part of the Artemis project
The lander part. Looks like it would topple over if landing on less than a totally flat surface.
I was explaining this to my daughter earlier (genuinely, captive audience as I drove her to start a 6am shift, she wasn't that interested but got told anyway) - in simple terms an arts graduate would understand. But it made me really think about the enormity of it again.
It's insane really isn't it?
They set off at an angle and velocity so as the oomph runs out, it's sufficient to get them far enough away and travelling fast enough that earth's gravity catches them just the right amount so they go round rather than descending in a graceful parabola back to a noisy and violent landing.
Then gravity holds them while they circuit the earth, until at just the right moment and for just the right amount of time they get a bit more oomph to break the hold and set off aiming for near the moon.
How near? Near enough that its own gravity catches them as they pass and make them circuit the moon just enough. Too close and they'll be dragged in and eventually down, too far and it won't catch them enough and they'll fly by. Sure, they can make corrections to this plan but it's not as if they're in a totally controlled flight, they need to be close enough.
Oh, and in case unclear, the moon's not still either, that's going around us at the same time, so you need to work all that out too.
And then the same in reverse, as the moon slingshots them back to just about the right place and time to enable them to get caught by earth again and land in the Pacific. Aiming for a few square miles of sea from a quarter of a million miles away. If my comparison's right that's like hitting a bullseye in darts. From an oche 350 yards away.
We've got huge computers to work all that out now. But when they first did it, it relied on a lady with a piece of paper and a pencil, and a desktop calculating machine. And some people with balls the size of planets to say that they believed it and they'd give it a go (IIRC they even refused to believe early computer models and wouldn't go unless she'd checked the calcs herself)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Johnson
Insane in every dimension, raised to the power of brilliant.
Yep, it's all a bit bonkers although there's probably an app for it now!
The Hidden Figures film about her is fantastic.
Whilst I can admire the science and engineering that goes into making this happen I’m still struggling to understand what the point of it is.
Whilst I can admire the science and engineering that goes into making this happen I’m still struggling to understand what the point of it is.
Doing difficult things brings developments in other areas - you could try looking up what the Apollo programme has brought to every day life. Artemis is a stepping stone to a permanent presence on the moon, and establishing that will necessitate all sorts of developments which could find a use elsewhere. Then there's the possibility for remote scientific experiments, astronomy, low gravity production of some high spec products etc etc etc
"But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the Moon. 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; "
And because it inspires. As you said, maybe some kids somewhere will be watching and inspired by the awesome sci-eng and maybe not be rocket scientists, but go on to something else 'valuable'
My YouTube has presented me with a lot of Brian Cox videos recently. He makes the points above about bringing other advancements and inspiration, but also a wider point that on earth we're always working with and competing for limited resources, but in space it's unlimited. Ultimately, out there is everything we could possibly need, we just need to keep advancing to the point at which we can go and utilise it.
What if we use everything we've got and never get there?
Get where?
Do, or do not do. There is no try.