Artemis (NASA moon mission)

[jadebox]

Originally Posted by sts60

I’m glad you were able to see it live, jadebox. There’s nothing like that sky-ripping rumble.

(So, is the Dixie Crossroads (seafood restaurant) still there?)

It is. But, I'm not real familiar with Titusville in general. I feel a little guilty that we seldom spend time in Titusville other than to watch a launch then leave.

My wife and I were able to watch one of the last shuttle launches from the "Turn Basin" area next to the Vehicle Assembly Building. It's the closest anyone (except the astronauts in the orbiter) were allowed to the launch pad - about three miles away.

For the Artemis 1/SLS launch, we were about 12 miles away. Although it's a little hard to compare - one was a day launch, the other a night launch (with a decade in between) - I am pretty sure the Artemis launch viewed from much farther away was a spectacular as the shuttle launch.

I never saw an Apollo Saturn V launch in person, but they were surely more spectacular. The SLS is more powerful but weighs less. The thrust to weight ratio of the Artemis 1 SLS is about 1.8 while the thrust ratio of the Saturn V was about 1.2. So, the SLS almost jumps off the pad compared to the Saturn V which lumbered and stained to get moving. Film of Saturn V launchs often look like they are slow-motion even when they aren't.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Props to the astronauts who're eager to plunk that thing on their bums and ride it into the vacuum.

I rode a tilt-a-whirl once, so I speak from experience.

[cjameshuff]

Originally Posted by jadebox

I never saw an Apollo Saturn V launch in person, but they were surely more spectacular. The SLS is more powerful but weighs less. The thrust to weight ratio of the Artemis 1 SLS is about 1.8 while the thrust ratio of the Saturn V was about 1.2. So, the SLS almost jumps off the pad compared to the Saturn V which lumbered and stained to get moving. Film of Saturn V launchs often look like they are slow-motion even when they aren't.

More accurately, the SLS has more thrust. Thrust is neither power nor capability. SLS gets off the ground quickly because of its solid boosters, but those same boosters have a high dry mass and short burn time.

Power isn't really a very useful metric for rockets. As for capability:
SLS Block 1 mass to LEO (including the upper stage and propellant required for TLI): 95 t
Saturn V mass to LEO (similarly including stage and propellant mass for TLI): 140 t

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That was some spectacular M F launch. Particularly in 4K. Really impressive at night.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by cjameshuff

More accurately, the SLS has more thrust. Thrust is neither power nor capability. SLS gets off the ground quickly because of its solid boosters, but those same boosters have a high dry mass and short burn time.

Yep. I've been working on booster design validation on and off for almost 20 years. (It seems there's a new company sign out front every time I go out to the Promontory facility. )

But this is exactly the idea. SRMs have a fairly unimpressive I_sp. But they have high thrust-to-weight and thrust-to-volume ratios--always important in large-scale vehicle design. It's not always about the propellant; sometimes it's just as much about the container you keep the propellant in. The metric we often use here is I_d, or density (specific) impulse. It's specific impulse scaled by the average specific gravity of the propellant(s).

Even knowing the numbers, I still heard a lot of, "Holy ******" at the watch party. It really did leap off the pad.

[jadebox]

Using precise terminology didn't seem important in the context of a discussion on something as subjective as how impressive a live launch looks and feels. :-)

Even watching the replay later on YouTube made me say "Wow."

I hope the next launch is in the daytime so we can see more views of the rocket. After all we paid for it and deserve a good show!

BTW, I am really looking forward to "riding along" with the astronauts in the later missions. During Apollo we saw news commentators describing the mission along with crude animations and only occasional live broadcasts from the astronauts. In addition to much better animation, we will probably be hearing from the astronauts and seeing feeds from the spacecraft almost continuously.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by jadebox

Even watching the replay later on YouTube made me say "Wow."

Yeah today there's been a lot of great video released too.

Like this lovely shot

[Mike!]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I believe that this rocket, the SLS, is now the largest rocket ever launched into space. It must have been intense.

I had the pleasure last year of seeing a rocket launch when I visited family in California. It was the rocket that launched the DART mission that recently smacked into the asteroid. But I imagine that the rocket I saw was quite a bit smaller than the one you saw. It was a Falcon 9 rocket. You can see a visual comparison here. Still, it was quite loud even though we were miles away. Doesn't take long for it to get out of sight.

Close, but the Saturn V still holds that title, for now...

https://www.al.com/news/2022/08/moon...e-numbers.html

[jadebox]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Yeah today there's been a lot of great video released too.

Like this lovely shot

There are also some amazing stills at that link.

I took a few photos with my cell phone, but they just show a white blob instead of the rocket.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Yeah today there's been a lot of great video released too.

Like this lovely shot

The noise must have scared the crap out of that bird!

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by jadebox

Using precise terminology didn't seem important in the context of a discussion on something as subjective as how impressive a live launch looks and feels. :-)

Agreed. The best terminology for the situation is still, "Holy ******"

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

That must have been incredible to witness personally. I'm glad you got the chance!

I've got friends who were in Florida for the Falcon Heavy launch. I was sooo jelly.

[sts60]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I've got friends who were in Florida for the Falcon Heavy launch. I was sooo jelly.

Watched that from the outside stairway of the Launch Control Center. I recorded it, including the booster flyback, but like a dummy stopped when they landed, and missed the sonic booms.

Attached is a photo of one on the Cape side afterwards.

One of the benefits of having been at CCAFS/KSC for work a lot was seeing Delta, Atlas, and Shuttle launches. Plus Shuttle landings, with their distinctive WHAM-WHAM double sonic boom.

Also saw an Antares launch from Wallops, from the visitor center.

[crescent]

Here's a mission tracking website, for anyone that's interested.

NASA Artemis Mission Tracker

One nitpick with it is that it doesn't show the actual schedule. For example it shows steps like "Enter Lunar influence, where the moon's gravity has a greater effect craft than does the earth's gravity". But it does not show when that will occur, only where.

Beyond that it is pretty good. Almost halfway there.

[arthwollipot]

Someone's set up a bot on Mastodon.

@NASA_Artemis_Feed_Bot@mastodon.lol

[Puppycow]

There's also a mission blog:

https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/

[sts60]

Really interesting entry in the last mission blog. I didn’t know the array tip cameras used Wi-Fi to transfer data. There’s a lot more fun stuff we can do that’s not directly essential to the mission with the advance of reliable lightweight electronics and data transfer technology.

The optical navigation system is a case in point. The Apollo crews used similar measurements of the Earth for some optical position determination, but this was by no means a primary navigation tool.

I need to read more about it, but it seems like Orion is investigating this for a backup autonomous absolute position determination in cislunar and translunar space. I wonder if the idea is that a spacecraft could return to Earth without any RF assistance, i.e., updating its own inertial navigation with sufficient accuracy by observation of Earth and the Moon and comparing shapes and sizes. Does anyone here know about this?

[Jim_MDP]

Followed by a surprise $2.1b charge from Sperry/Rand for "Full Self Driving"?

.

[jonesdave116]

Anybody seen any close-up video of the Artemis launch? I have seen some vids that start with a close-up, but nothing that compares to this ~3.5 minutes of visceral awesomeness;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVLuKB_JfJ4

[Puppycow]

Fraser Cain covers the Artemis 1 launch (and about future Artemis missions), some stuff about the JWST as well as the Air Force's "Secret Space Plane" (it looks like a small version of the Space Shuttle). It is unmanned and whatever its mission is, is classified. (Not sure if it could be related to any recent UAP sightings.)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Best viewed full screen, imho.

[sts60]

Its mission is classified, but clearly not its existence, i.e., it is an “acknowledged” program. This is the repurposed former Orbiter Processing Facility 1 (OPF-1), where they used to work on Space Shuttle Orbiters after landing. The reduced image is a little blurry, but the logo says “X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle”.

[sts60]

Successful first burn at perilune, setting the spacecraft up for Distant Retrograde Orbit (DRO) insertion. So far, so good. Orion and its SM passed 81 miles over the surface of the Moon. Should be some good images coming our way.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by sts60

Should be some good images coming our way.

Except, so far, not!

Their broadcasts have left a little to be desired.

There's been a little more showmanship in SpaceX's broadcasts. Now, that may not be their focus, and fair play, but for the price of SLS and Artemis, you might expect a little more. Certainly on their landing flight in (tentatively) 2025, I'd expect the whole thing to be livestreamed 4K! I guess we'll see...

[Mike!]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

Except, so far, not!

Their broadcasts have left a little to be desired.

There's been a little more showmanship in SpaceX's broadcasts. Now, that may not be their focus, and fair play, but for the price of SLS and Artemis, you might expect a little more. Certainly on their landing flight in (tentatively) 2025, I'd expect the whole thing to be livestreamed 4K! I guess we'll see...

They should have sent more talkative mannequins.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

Except, so far, not!

There's a regular series of images on the Artemis blog, but they're not spectacular. The latest ones look a little bit fake.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

Except, so far, not!

Their broadcasts have left a little to be desired.

There's been a little more showmanship in SpaceX's broadcasts. Now, that may not be their focus, and fair play, but for the price of SLS and Artemis, you might expect a little more. Certainly on their landing flight in (tentatively) 2025, I'd expect the whole thing to be livestreamed 4K! I guess we'll see...

It will be a bit sad when engineers put a human on another astronomical body and everybody whines that the feed - from 384,000 km away - is not in 4K.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

There's a regular series of images on the Artemis blog, but they're not spectacular. The latest ones look a little bit fake.

I kinda see what you mean. No stars? Isn't that something that the moon-landings-were-faked people go on about?

I think it's because of the way cameras work. If the exposure were long enough to see stars, it would be too long to see the moon or the earth (oversaturation)

You cannot photograph well a very bright object and a very dim object in the same picture. You need long exposures for dim objects and short exposures for bright ones. It's more important here to focus on the moon than the stars in the background, so you end up not being able to see them at all, due to underexposure.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

There's a regular series of images on the Artemis blog, but they're not spectacular. The latest ones look a little bit fake.

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I kinda see what you mean. No stars? Isn't that something that the moon-landings-were-faked people go on about?

I think it's because of the way cameras work. If the exposure were long enough to see stars, it would be too long to see the moon or the earth (oversaturation)

You cannot photograph well a very bright object and a very dim object in the same picture. You need long exposures for dim objects and short exposures for bright ones. It's more important here to focus on the moon than the stars in the background, so you end up not being able to see them at all, due to underexposure.

I noticed also that the focus isn't very tight on some of the pics.

I get the impression that top tier photography just wasn't much of a priority for the mission. Which is fine - it's a testing mission, not a photo safari.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

Certainly on their landing flight in (tentatively) 2025, I'd expect the whole thing to be livestreamed 4K! I guess we'll see...

Originally Posted by jeremyp

It will be a bit sad when engineers put a human on another astronomical body and everybody whines that the feed - from 384,000 km away - is not in 4K.

The opposite. It's what I would expect. In 1969, the Apollo feed was 10fps, monochrome, with earth-based signal processing... from the surface of the moon! It was a minor miracle, compared to the overall landing. In the 21st c, I'd expect a 4K equivalent. If they're going to land on the far side, then small cubesat relays won't be a big adder. This should be prioritized for the public who: a) want something new, b) vote and c) are footing the bill for the billions in public expenditure and schedule delays. No bucks, no Buck Rogers!

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I kinda see what you mean. No stars? Isn't that something that the moon-landings-were-faked people go on about?

I think it's because of the way cameras work. If the exposure were long enough to see stars, it would be too long to see the moon or the earth (oversaturation)

You cannot photograph well a very bright object and a very dim object in the same picture. You need long exposures for dim objects and short exposures for bright ones. It's more important here to focus on the moon than the stars in the background, so you end up not being able to see them at all, due to underexposure.

Apparently, even the astronauts see stars better in orbital nighttime. There's so much light and glare from the sun and earth in daytime, that their eyes don't resolve as many stars.

Originally Posted by crescent

I get the impression that top tier photography just wasn't much of a priority for the mission. Which is fine - it's a testing mission, not a photo safari.

Maybe. I suspect they're going to want to prioritize showmanship, even as early as the first (next) crewed flight.

[Checkmite]

SpaceX has pretty video because it never leaves NEO and can broadcast directly to the ground.

From deep space it's a different story. Artemis in Moon orbit has to transmit through the Deep Space Network. Streaming 4K video is an enormous ask of a satellite communications-relay network that was designed to carry telemetry and, on the outside, voice transmissions.

You believe a total rebuild of the DSN - a completely different program - should have been included in the SLS/Orion budget?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Anybody seen any close-up video of the Artemis launch? I have seen some vids that start with a close-up, but nothing that compares to this ~3.5 minutes of visceral awesomeness;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVLuKB_JfJ4

Here's a reel of the various pad cameras:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

And here are some 4K and slow-motion shots:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

SpaceX has pretty video because it never leaves NEO and can broadcast directly to the ground.

From deep space it's a different story. Artemis in Moon orbit has to transmit through the Deep Space Network. Streaming 4K video is an enormous ask of a satellite communications-relay network that was designed to carry telemetry and, on the outside, voice transmissions.

Going forward, it looks like Artemis will use a combination of the DSN and Near Space Network (NSN) with theoretical (currently demo) mission data rates up to 1.2Gbps. The DSN is also receiving minor upgrades, but this isn't its only mission.

Quote:

You believe a total rebuild of the DSN - a completely different program - should have been included in the SLS/Orion budget?

Given work in progress? No. Given that it's a 21st century megaproject? Data rates are something to consider. Of course, due to the vagaries of spaceflight, the best systems may have occurrences where they can't fully support 4K streaming. In that case, your stored solution could be 4K. They may even consider 8K or IMAX 65mm film, or something, for a stored solution.

ETA:

Further, SpaceX's 'show' goes beyond the stuff beamed from space. They have some fun telemetry, they cut to audio of applause, they don't have a scene where the big boss stands around saying, 'nobody in the room can hear me,' etc. That's all Earth-bound. NASA may feel they get a pass, because they're a room full of engineers working a problem, but I'm not sure the politicians see it that way. It's not just a case of 'poor NASA, SpaceX has it so much easier.'

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

Given work in progress? No. Given that it's a 21st century megaproject? Data rates are something to consider. Of course, due to the vagaries of spaceflight, the best systems may have occurrences where they can't fully support 4K streaming. In that case, your stored solution could be 4K. They may even consider 8K or IMAX 65mm film, or something, for a stored solution.

It is my understanding that Artemis is in fact storing 4K video and imagery on board for NASA to collect once Orion returns to Earth.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

It is my understanding that Artemis is in fact storing 4K video and imagery on board for NASA to collect once Orion returns to Earth.

The plot thicks. Some of the production values still need to be tidied up, but I did find an 'official' 4K broadcast of the launch. However, on launch night, it wasn't available! Did my YouTube just decide it needed a coffee break? Apparently, they upgraded the pad cameras for 4K broadcast, and it was initially their intention to do so.

So, I'm wrong, because apparently, it was only unavailable to me, but I'm right in that for an event/budget/public engagement this massive, 4K should be the expectation. That was the plan. I don't know what the plan is for various mission stages going ahead.

One other tricky aspect is that a stream might be 4K, but that could be the ground cameras and commentary, and not what is actually being sent back from the cameras.

ETA: starting to see some 1080p of earth rise/set from lunar orbit. That's what I'm talking about! (Now, I'm no longer talking about the engineering and mission setup and just geeking out as a space fan!)

[jadebox]

When I realized that the blob that appeared at the bottom of the live video of the moon flyby was Earth, I got goosebumps.

I figure the amount of my taxes that goes to NASA each year is less than we'd spend going out for a movie once. The return on investment from just the entertainment value I am getting from this launch far outweighs the cost!

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by jadebox

When I realized that the blob that appeared at the bottom of the live video of the moon flyby was Earth, I got goosebumps.

I figure the amount of my taxes that goes to NASA each year is less than we'd spend going out for a movie once. The return on investment from just the entertainment value I am getting from this launch far outweighs the cost!

In 1080p the 'blob' resolves to a nicely detailed view of Earth from lunar orbit.

Note: CNET has a nice little overview video of the camera work. Yes, streaming might be poor, but apparently, a lot of good stuff is anticipated once Orion returns. For landing and longer term missions, I could see them shooting in 4K, but not necessarily streaming. Then, since they wouldn't be returning to Earth, they could data dump later at lower bit rates.

[Checkmite]

A couple of new video clips; SLS abort tower jettison from inside the crew module:

https://twitter.com/TJ_Cooney/status...80929769758720

And the launch from the perspective of the European service module:

https://twitter.com/TJ_Cooney/status...84285456334872

This second video was originally streamed during the launch but the fidelity was not terrific, I'm guessing due to vehicle vibration and launch dynamics interfering with data transmission; this is a better and complete version.

[Checkmite]

Fantastic!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/52516951762/

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Fantastic!

Yup!

[sts60]

Awesome. As in the old sense of filling one with awe.

It’s gonna be like a free candy store being opened when all the different video is downloaded, downloaded upon return, orthocorrected, etc., and curated for easy viewing.

Ha, it would be absolutely the cherry on top if we could get imagery of reentry find something in orbit.