NASA Livestreams the Rocket That Will Carry Four Astronauts Around the Moon (bbc.com) 62
"A mega rocket set to take astronauts around the Moon for the first time in decades is being taken to its launch pad," the BBC reported this morning.
NASA is livestreaming their move of the 11-million-pound "stack" — which includes the Artemis II Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and the Orion spacecraft secured to it, all standing on its Mobile Launch Platform. Travelling at less than 1 mile per hour, the move is expected to take 12 hours.
The mission — which could blast off as soon as 6 February — is expected to take 10 days. It is part of a wider plan aimed at returning astronauts to the lunar surface.
As well as the rocket being ready, the Moon has to be in the right place too, so successive launch windows are selected accordingly. In practice, this means one week at the beginning of each month during which the rocket is pointed in the right direction followed by three weeks where there are no launch opportunities. The potential launch dates are:
— 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 February
— 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 March
— 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 April
"The crew of four will travel beyond the far side of the moon, which could set a new record for the farthest distance humans have ever traveled from Earth, currently held by Apollo 13," reports CNN: But why won't Artemis II land on the lunar surface? "The short answer is because it doesn't have the capability. This is not a lunar lander," said Patty Casas Horn, deputy lead for Mission Analysis and Integrated Assessments at NASA. "Throughout the history of NASA, everything that we do is a bit risky, and so we want to make sure that that risk makes sense, and only accept the risk that we have to accept, within reason. So we build out a capability, then we test it out, then we build out a capability, then we test it out. And we will get to landing on the moon, but Artemis II is really about the crew..."
The upcoming flight is the first time that people will be on board the Artemis spacecraft: The Orion capsule will carry the astronauts around the moon, and the SLS rocket will launch Orion into Earth orbit before the crew continues deeper into space... The mission will begin with two revolutions around Earth, before starting the translunar injection — the maneuver that will take the spacecraft out of Earth orbit and on toward the moon — about 26 hours into the flight, Horn said. "That's when we set up for the big burn — it's about six minutes in duration. And once we do this, you're on your way back to Earth. There's nothing else that you need to do. You're going to go by the moon, and the moon's gravity is going to pull you around and swing you back towards the Earth...." Avoiding entering lunar orbit keeps the mission profile simpler, allowing the crew to focus on other tasks as there is no need to pilot the spacecraft in any way.
"The Artemis program's first planned lunar lander is called the Starship HLS, or Human Landing System, and is currently under development by SpaceX..."
NASA is livestreaming their move of the 11-million-pound "stack" — which includes the Artemis II Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and the Orion spacecraft secured to it, all standing on its Mobile Launch Platform. Travelling at less than 1 mile per hour, the move is expected to take 12 hours.
The mission — which could blast off as soon as 6 February — is expected to take 10 days. It is part of a wider plan aimed at returning astronauts to the lunar surface.
As well as the rocket being ready, the Moon has to be in the right place too, so successive launch windows are selected accordingly. In practice, this means one week at the beginning of each month during which the rocket is pointed in the right direction followed by three weeks where there are no launch opportunities. The potential launch dates are:
— 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 February
— 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 March
— 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 April
"The crew of four will travel beyond the far side of the moon, which could set a new record for the farthest distance humans have ever traveled from Earth, currently held by Apollo 13," reports CNN: But why won't Artemis II land on the lunar surface? "The short answer is because it doesn't have the capability. This is not a lunar lander," said Patty Casas Horn, deputy lead for Mission Analysis and Integrated Assessments at NASA. "Throughout the history of NASA, everything that we do is a bit risky, and so we want to make sure that that risk makes sense, and only accept the risk that we have to accept, within reason. So we build out a capability, then we test it out, then we build out a capability, then we test it out. And we will get to landing on the moon, but Artemis II is really about the crew..."
The upcoming flight is the first time that people will be on board the Artemis spacecraft: The Orion capsule will carry the astronauts around the moon, and the SLS rocket will launch Orion into Earth orbit before the crew continues deeper into space... The mission will begin with two revolutions around Earth, before starting the translunar injection — the maneuver that will take the spacecraft out of Earth orbit and on toward the moon — about 26 hours into the flight, Horn said. "That's when we set up for the big burn — it's about six minutes in duration. And once we do this, you're on your way back to Earth. There's nothing else that you need to do. You're going to go by the moon, and the moon's gravity is going to pull you around and swing you back towards the Earth...." Avoiding entering lunar orbit keeps the mission profile simpler, allowing the crew to focus on other tasks as there is no need to pilot the spacecraft in any way.
"The Artemis program's first planned lunar lander is called the Starship HLS, or Human Landing System, and is currently under development by SpaceX..."
Re: (Score:3)
I am watching it now! So captivating I think I am going to watch it for the next 12 hours!
Re: (Score:3)
The hardware needs to be tested incrementally, gradually extending mission goals as you test intermediate ones. That's why Apollo 11 was preceded by four manned missions, two of which went to the moon without landing.
If you go into lunar orbit, there is an added risk, especially if you don't have a lander as a backup for getting out of it. (Apollo 8 didn't have one.) I can respect NASA's decision not to go into orbit on this mission.
Re: (Score:2)
The hardware needs to be tested incrementally, gradually extending mission goals as you test intermediate ones. That's why Apollo 11 was preceded by four manned missions, two of which went to the moon without landing.
If you go into lunar orbit, there is an added risk, especially if you don't have a lander as a backup for getting out of it. (Apollo 8 didn't have one.) I can respect NASA's decision not to go into orbit on this mission.
We see a huge difference between the NASA approach and the Spacex Starship approach. The concept of Move Fast and Break Things doesn't apply when the rockets have to be human rated.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA's idea of "human rating" is apparently "kills the crew one time in sixty and comes close to killing the crew on the very first flight."
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I forgot. "And comes close to killing the crew on the second flight after the first time it kills the crew."
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, crap. That explains how SpaceX developed the Crew Dragon...
SpaceX blew through 23 cargo missions with the Dragon 1, failing faster and faster.
Then SpaceX blew through the Dragon 2 testing, only 3 test flights to get to a crewed mission, which was successful.
NASA, on the other hand, took 5 years to go from the scheduled first test of SLS to an actual launch. Hey, space is hard.
4 years later, Artemis II is the first crewed launch of the Orion capsule. They launched the unmanned lunar orbital mission 3 or
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, crap. That explains how SpaceX developed the Crew Dragon...
SpaceX blew through 23 cargo missions with the Dragon 1, failing faster and faster.
Then SpaceX blew through the Dragon 2 testing, only 3 test flights to get to a crewed mission, which was successful.
NASA, on the other hand, took 5 years to go from the scheduled first test of SLS to an actual launch. Hey, space is hard.
4 years later, Artemis II is the first crewed launch of the Orion capsule. They launched the unmanned lunar orbital mission 3 or so years ago.
And now, the first manned mission, Artemis II, the lunar flyby. Incremental testing - hey, why rush things...
Here's your problem. You apparently don't know the history of rocketry. NASA went through the disaster launch stage heading toward 70 years ago. They learned the curve. At this time, Rockets should seldom do unplanned disassembly.
How about a dissertation on comparing Artemis to Falcon 9, and then a dissertation on Artemis comparing to Starship. Rocketry is old science, the Nazis developed the systems that are the basis of all modern rocketry. We just tweak it. so many modern people seem to think Musk inv
Re: Corporate welfare (Score:3)
No, perhaps you're butthurt that SpaceX seems to get so much credit, but I recognize that he's organized a company that has achieved great, and not long ago unthinkable, goals. I wait to see NASA regain it's focus and achieve the great goals it espouses.
Please, give it a rest. SpaceX is successful. Why is that such a painful thing to you?
Re: (Score:2)
No, perhaps you're butthurt that SpaceX seems to get so much credit, but I recognize that he's organized a company that has achieved great, and not long ago unthinkable, goals. I wait to see NASA regain it's focus and achieve the great goals it espouses.
Please, give it a rest. SpaceX is successful. Why is that such a painful thing to you?
Painful? au contraire, mon Frère. I love taking the piss out ot the cult. You are playing well into my game. Thank you for participating. The Falcons are fine rockets, BTW. StarShip on the other hand is not. It is a reboot of the Commie N1 Rocket.
I'm just trolling, and you are rising to the bait. If you want, we can get really into this, just keep in mind, I've been on teh intertoobz a long time. Not too shabby at trolling the weak minded.
I don't even dislike Spacex - you make the critical mi
Re: Corporate welfare (Score:2)
Thanks for the info. I was under that I was a cult member... Of any popularly denigrated cult-ish thing.
But you don't know me. At all. Keep guessing
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the info. I was under that I was a cult member... Of any popularly denigrated cult-ish thing.
But you don't know me. At all. Keep guessing
You are most unapologetically and emphatically welcome. I don't guess, homie - I deduct from your post. People who are in cults don't think they are, just like stupid people think they are really smart. And the first thing they do to seal the deal is deny. Now let's have a group hug!
Re: (Score:3)
StarShip on the other hand is not. It is a reboot of the Commie N1 Rocket.
No. The N-1 suffered from these problems:
1. lack of testing on individual engines. The engines were not built to be restartable. They used e.g. pyrotechnics to open valves, meaning that valve could only be opened once. They tested NK-15 engines by building a batch of 6, testing 3, and if those tests were successful, putting the remaining 3 on the rocket.
2. lack of testing on individual stages. This was because the Soviets didn't want to spend years, $ and thousands of tons of concrete to build the huge test
Re: (Score:1)
StarShip on the other hand is not. It is a reboot of the Commie N1 Rocket.
No. The N-1 suffered from these problems:
Yes, time and technology has moved on. Complexity has not. the issues of complexity have been lessened, but it is foolish to believe that they have gone away.
Your talking points are correct, but the obvious flaws of the Russian many engined rocket may have been mitigated, but complexity can still be a real killer.
Re: Corporate welfare (Score:2)
Oh, and I forgot. Fail fast and iteration was NASA's plan to go to the Moon the first time(s). SpaceX uses similar strategies. It seems.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and I forgot. Fail fast and iteration was NASA's plan to go to the Moon the first time(s). SpaceX uses similar strategies. It seems.
Right - How many Saturn 5 Rocket launches failed? Now How many Starship launches have failed? Should be a similar number ion your thesis is correct. Damn, we got a live one here folks! Your turn, Binky.
Re: Corporate welfare (Score:2)
The Saturn project began in 1960. Most accounts describe it as engineering-intensive, focused not on iteration but attention to detail and getting it right before going too far down a set path. Von Braun allegedly considered Jupiter rockets as the concept tests, and the engineering effort paid off. Saturn never had a mission failure. Saturn innovated so many things, big engines to control systems to navigation from before launch.
US Rocketry went through many failures, predictably, there was so much to learn
Re: (Score:2)
They're not even practicing getting into orbit around the moon, which would be needed for a landing.
The (uncrewed) Artemis I [wikipedia.org] mission did this in 2022, so, at least, the equipment has already been tested for that. I imagine the astronauts have spent a bunch of time in simulations on the ground, training for all kinds of situations.
Re: (Score:2)
What possible value is coming from this besides corporate welfare.
They're not even practicing getting into orbit around the moon, which would be needed for a landing. This is just a government sponsored joy ride.
Didn't you hear? Musk is going to beat them by launching Starship to the moon, landing, and returning in a blaze of preemptive glory. He said he would go to Mars at the same time, but that would be rubbing in his success.
New! Improved! (Score:2)
"Twinkle, twinkle Gemini Five; How we hope you come back alive."
Re: (Score:2)
This is a really inappropriate joke. Especially considering the present track record of Boeing/Artemis.
These astronauts are at serious risk.
Re: (Score:2)
present track record of Boeing/Artemis
Press F to pay respects.
Re: (Score:2)
Fffffffuuuuuuu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In advance even.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a really inappropriate joke. Especially considering the present track record of Boeing/Artemis.
These astronauts are at serious risk.
True dat. Starship has a perfect record, and never a problem.
Seriously, comparing a rocket that was successful on its first launch is apparently a failure, while StarShip's greatest aspect is its ability to go boom. What exact planet do you live on?
Re: (Score:2)
Starship, if it works, will fly hundreds of times before putting a human on board. It can do that because each launch doesn't cost several billion dollars and take several years of work.
SLS won't even fly enough to ever know how safe it actually was. At most it's likely to make maybe half a dozen flights.
Re: (Score:2)
True dat. Starship has a perfect record, and never a problem.
Who said anything about Starship? A ship that has never carried a person?
I'm referring entirely to Artemis - lengthy history of failures and delays - and Boeing capsules that left astronauts that were supposed to be on the ISS for 10 days stranded on the ISS for 10 months. Like a space ship class SS Minnow on Gilligan's fucking Island Space Station.
Re: (Score:2)
Settle down... Francis.
Phrasing! (Score:4, Funny)
which could blast off
Pretty sure NASA prefers "lift off" or "launch" ... :-)
Waste of money (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Putin still has the pictures of Trump blowing Bubba
Re: (Score:1)
All I need is one shot (Score:3)
Has anybody have any idea what the speedometer looks like, you know redline at 2mph ?
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the max speed is 1mph, not 2.
You can read more about it on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Has anybody have any idea what the speedometer looks like, you know redline at 2mph ?
Here you go: https://www.nasa.gov/image-det... [nasa.gov]
https://images-assets.nasa.gov... [nasa.gov]
The difference - (Score:2)
NASA crawling at 1 mile an hour on a billion dollar transporter carrying their launch Tower along with the rocket.
SpaceX blithely tooling down a public Highway with their considerably larger rocket on commercially supplied transporter systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Between NASA and SpaceX is incredibly stark. NASA crawling at 1 mile an hour on a billion dollar transporter carrying their launch Tower along with the rocket. SpaceX blithely tooling down a public Highway with their considerably larger rocket on commercially supplied transporter systems.
Right now - you have to pick, no waffling just one word. You have a chance to ride on either Starship or Artemis tomorrow assume both launch. Which do you pick?Artemis, or Starship.
Seriously you people have your heads so far up Musk's backside you can see his esophagus. If the speed of the transporter is a flex, you have reached the bottom of the barrel. Besides, Starship rapidly disassembles pretty quickly too - Flex on that.
Re: (Score:2)
The flex is that so far, the refurbishment of just the launch platform for SLS has cost about as much as the entire Starship development.
Now, Starship development hasn't finished yet, but it's clear that SpaceX has a better handle on making access to space cheaper than NASA does.
We already faked the moon landing (Score:1)
Senate Launch System (Score:5, Interesting)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry... [huffpost.com]
The Senate Launch System will force the U.S. to jettison an entire generation of expertise in spaceflight, advanced technology and exploration systems, not to mention most of our astronaut corps and the Johnson and Kennedy space centers where such work is based. While trying to fund and build the SLS, NASA will kill itself as an exploration entity.
Re: (Score:3)
"It will destroy NASA" - Nope, it's just a disgusting waste of money, but there is more money to come.
The MAGA right is fucked, the woke left is fucked, please people, be a centrist.
Re: (Score:2)
SLS hoovered up insane amounts of cash to rehash 1970s tech in an unsustainable way while simultaneously damaging the credibility of the American space program.
In 2011, hardly anyone could foresee the role SpaceX would go on to play, but they sure nailed the future of SLS.
If by "centrist" you mean "disgusted by all party politics", then I've been there since the 80s.
Re: Apollo DEI (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Choosing a black man and a woman because of their skin color and genitalia *as Biden made NASA do* is:
- racist
- sexist
- DEI
Fuck racism, fuck sexism, fuck DEI and fuck all you hateful, bigoted, woke cunts.
https://www.space.com/nasa-sending-first-person-of-color-to-moon-artemis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: After 15+ years of reading slashdot comments (Score:2)
Humans? (Score:2)
Why the obsession with getting humans to the moon so early in the project?
I would think creating a habitat, mining ore and exploring could easily be done with robots, some autonomously and some remotely piloted.
Once they get a habitat built, humans could follow. Who wouldn't want to bounce around in 20% earth gravity?
But will the rocket turn into a Roman Candle? (Score:2)
I Smell Pork (Score:2)
Considering the 30 year corrupt fat pork compromised for my state profit for my corporations boondoggle that this rocket is, don't hold your breath.