Artemis (NASA moon mission)

Puppycow · 24th December 2019, 08:42 PM

I figured this one could use its own thread. Seems pretty cool. I wonder how soon it will happen.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T8cn2J13-4

It says the video is 4K, if you have a display big enough for that.

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

Puppycow · 24th December 2019, 09:17 PM

As far as the naming of the mission (Artemis), the first NASA manned mission to the moon was Apollo, and in Greek mythology, Artemis was the twin sister of Apollo. She is also the goddess of the moon (as well as other things). So there's both a moon connection and an Apollo connection there.

Mike! · 25th December 2019, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

As far as the naming of the mission (Artemis), the first NASA manned mission to the moon was Apollo, and in Greek mythology, Artemis was the twin sister of Apollo. She is also the goddess of the moon (as well as other things). So there's both a moon connection and an Apollo connection there.

Well that has to be the most amazing coincidence ever!

MRC_Hans · 25th December 2019, 08:44 AM

That's very cool! I hope to see this carried out in reality.

Hans

rjh01 · 25th December 2019, 02:34 PM

I cannot see the point of the spaceship that orbits both the moon and earth. I predict that will be one of the things that will be thrown out between now and when it happens. It also depends on the next US president endorsing this project.

Apart from going to Mars what will this project achieve? The only other real reason for going back is mining.

theprestige · 25th December 2019, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by rjh01

I cannot see the point of the spaceship that orbits both the moon and earth. I predict that will be one of the things that will be thrown out between now and when it happens.

I don't understand your objection. The point is a spaceship suitable for long-term human habitation. It can orbit Earth, Moon, Mars, Venus, the Sun... Etc. with equal facility. Obvious early stages of development will include short-duration testing in LEO, medium-duration testing in translunar and cislunar flights, and long-duration testing in both those regimes.

Sending it to the moon and back means it can contribute to the development of moon-based infrastructure, in addition to developing techniques and knowledge for long-duration missions.

Probably one of the first long-duration test missions will be an extended stay in LEO, where the crew and the craft are easily accessible from Earth if something breaks unexpectedly, or some unforseen crisis occurs.

On top of all that, once you have a spaceship that can orbit the moon, it can also orbit the Earth. It's literally impossible to throw out "orbits the Earth" at that point. Your objection makes no physical sense, unless you're predicting that they're just not going to build a spacecraft capable of leaving LEO, which seems like a really weird prediction.

tl;dr - WTF are you even talking about?

Jim_MDP · 25th December 2019, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by rjh01

I cannot see the point of the spaceship that orbits both the moon and earth. I predict that will be one of the things that will be thrown out between now and when it happens. It also depends on the next US president endorsing this project.

Apart from going to Mars what will this project achieve? The only other real reason for going back is mining.

Wait... what?
All we've done to date is live in the ascent/descent modules, then throw them away after the mission (outside of Earth orbit that is). Everything has been driving toward orbital habitats, surface habitats, reusable ascent/descent craft... and some functional deep space transfer ship.
Gravity wells are a bitch... it doesn't make sense any other way without some yet to be developed hyper efficient and affordable power (thrust) source.
Even then, the scales make more sense to; get 'em off the surface, stage in orbit, then transfer to the transit vehicle.
We could have been here 30 years ago, but at least we're pushing forward once more. Still eleventyseven new issues to solve, but this is how you do it.

Major Major · 25th December 2019, 05:51 PM

For the past few years, the history of manned spaceflight has been "The best is the enemy of the good." Vehicles have been developed, then discarded when something newer and cooler is proposed, only to be superseded in its turn.

The Orion could have done some of the same things, but the opinion of all the other proposers of competing programs prevailed. Will Artemis be any different?

rjh01 · 25th December 2019, 09:52 PM

What I am talking about is the spacecraft called Gateway. For more details about that please watch the YouTube. I did make one small mistake. It orbits just the moon not the earth moon system as I said above.

I cannot see the point of missions to the moon first having to dock with Gateway before descending to the moon. The part that descends to the moon is not reusable as they leave part of it behind.

There might be a point in the future to have Gateway. If they can manufacture fuel and other parts needed to land and take off the moon on Gateway, or the moon and then send them up to Gateway. But that will not happen for years after we go back to the moon.

Here is them talking about Gatewayhttps://youtu.be/_T8cn2J13-4?t=176

Jim_MDP · 25th December 2019, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by rjh01

What I am talking about is the spacecraft called Gateway. For more details about that please watch the YouTube. I did make one small mistake. It orbits just the moon not the earth moon system as I said above.

I cannot see the point of missions to the moon first having to dock with Gateway before descending to the moon. The part that descends to the moon is not reusable as they leave part of it behind.

There might be a point in the future to have Gateway. If they can manufacture fuel and other parts needed to land and take off the moon on Gateway, or the moon and then send them up to Gateway. But that will not happen for years after we go back to the moon.

Here is them talking about Gatewayhttps://youtu.be/_T8cn2J13-4?t=176

Good correction, fair enough.
I haven't followed the project or watched the vid, so I can't comment on the details you mention. I did see a Manley vid posted a day or two ago but planned on watching it in another few days.

Puppycow · 26th December 2019, 12:50 AM

The YouTube video I posted above is only 5 and a half minutes long. I know sometimes it's hard to watch videos though, e.g. at work.

Here's Wikipedia entry for more info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

jadebox · 26th December 2019, 06:49 AM

The video explains the Gateway a little better than the Wikipedia article. But, still doesn't go into much detail.

It doesn't seem necessary for the missions to the moon, but I suspect it adds more value than it costs. It would start as just a hub and maybe a communications center to which modules can be later attached. If it later evolved into a real space station, it wouldn't cost much more than the ISS to operate and would provide an enhanced platform for supporting operations on the Moon.

The Gateway will be much more useful in orbit around Mars. For one thing, getting people into orbit around Mars will be much easier than getting them to the surface. Humans in orbit around Mars will be able control multiple rovers and other robotic explorers in near real time. In a few weeks, they would probably be able to explore more of Mars than all of the previous landers combined.

As far as the utility of going back to the moon before going to Mars, it seems obvious to me. Developing and testing the systems in an environment where earth is only a few days away (versus months) and communication is only delayed a few seconds (versus minutes) is one benefit.

jadebox · 26th December 2019, 07:05 AM

I just hope all of this actually happens while I am around to watch! I can sort of remember watching the ghostly black and white image of Armstrong climbing down the LM's ladder to the moon.

This time we will be able to follow the missions with high-def video and the astronauts Tweeting and blogging from space.

The portion of the taxes I pay which goes to support space exploration amounts to about the cost of my wife and I going to a movie once a year. Nevermind the other benefits, just the entertainment I get from it is worth the cost to me!

theprestige · 26th December 2019, 07:09 AM

Gateway seems like it means each mission doesn't have to be a complete LM-AM-CSM stack. You can send different combos of modules, and remix them at Gateway depending on which direction you're going.

MRC_Hans · 26th December 2019, 10:11 AM

A very important mission of Gateway is obviously research and mission planning. For the Apollo missions, landing sites had to be planned on Earth, before the mission started, and only minor modifications were possible later on.

The Gateway orbits the moon and makes continuous observations, the expedition docs there and a carefully selected landing site can be chosen. I also assume the Gateway plays a crucial role in directing all the pre-placed gear.

It is a far more structured approach. And of course, it points forward to expeditions further out, mainly Mars.

Hans

Garrison · 26th December 2019, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Major Major

For the past few years, the history of manned spaceflight has been "The best is the enemy of the good." Vehicles have been developed, then discarded when something newer and cooler is proposed, only to be superseded in its turn.

The Orion could have done some of the same things, but the opinion of all the other proposers of competing programs prevailed. Will Artemis be any different?

The major difference now is the available hardware. Much of what needed to mount a lunar mission already exists, it just a matter of money and imagination.

Roboramma · 26th December 2019, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Gateway seems like it means each mission doesn't have to be a complete LM-AM-CSM stack. You can send different combos of modules, and remix them at Gateway depending on which direction you're going.

Couldn't you still send those things separately and have them rendezvous in lunar orbit without Gateway?

rjh01 · 26th December 2019, 06:10 PM

One good thing about their plans is that one mission would involve several rockets. One rocket may send the descent rocket, another may send living quarters, rover and other things they need on the moon and a third the astronauts. This means they can send a much larger payload to the moon, including more people. Then keep them on the moon for much longer. Getting them between the earth and the moon is the expensive part.

Edit: Looks like Roboramma had similar thoughts.

theprestige · 26th December 2019, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Couldn't you still send those things separately and have them rendezvous in lunar orbit without Gateway?

Yes, and the ISS could have been an orbital shipyard instead of a PR stunt. The space-industrial complex moves in mysterious ways.

Garrison · 28th December 2019, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Yes, and the ISS could have been an orbital shipyard instead of a PR stunt. The space-industrial complex moves in mysterious ways.

Don't forget the desire to provide employment for a lot of ex-Soviet engineers who might have taken jobs in North Korea, Iran, etc.

There was also the issue of depending on an expensive and unreliable launch system in the shape of the STS.

Wolrab · 28th December 2019, 04:19 PM

My big take away on this is Artemis Gordon was named after a girl.

Jim_MDP · 29th December 2019, 02:36 AM

Originally Posted by Wolrab

My big take away on this is Artemis Gordon was named after a girl.

Well... he did seem to get into drag more than might have been absolutely necessary.

The Greater Fool · 29th December 2019, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by Wolrab

My big take away on this is Artemis Gordon was named after a girl.

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP

Well... he did seem to get into drag more than might have been absolutely necessary.

Maybe Artemis Gordon was non-binary.

Puppycow · 12th April 2020, 04:05 AM

NASA released a new video about the mission.

It looks like they're planning to send women this time. That'll make it a kind of first.

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

Trebuchet · 12th April 2020, 06:56 AM

The most awesome thing about that video was new lunar hardware arriving on a 1940's airplane!

Garrison · 12th April 2020, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

NASA released a new video about the mission.

It looks like they're planning to send women this time. That'll make it a kind of first.

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

More than a small problem with Artemis is how deeply involved Boeing is with the program. It's become clear the issues with Starliner weren't a couple of bugs but systemic failings. Add the 737 MAX and the KC-46 tanker program to the mix and I would not be holding my breath on the SLS flying successfully next year.

cjameshuff · 12th April 2020, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't understand your objection. The point is a spaceship suitable for long-term human habitation. It can orbit Earth, Moon, Mars, Venus, the Sun... Etc. with equal facility. Obvious early stages of development will include short-duration testing in LEO, medium-duration testing in translunar and cislunar flights, and long-duration testing in both those regimes.

Sending it to the moon and back means it can contribute to the development of moon-based infrastructure, in addition to developing techniques and knowledge for long-duration missions.

Probably one of the first long-duration test missions will be an extended stay in LEO, where the crew and the craft are easily accessible from Earth if something breaks unexpectedly, or some unforseen crisis occurs.

On top of all that, once you have a spaceship that can orbit the moon, it can also orbit the Earth. It's literally impossible to throw out "orbits the Earth" at that point. Your objection makes no physical sense, unless you're predicting that they're just not going to build a spacecraft capable of leaving LEO, which seems like a really weird prediction.

tl;dr - WTF are you even talking about?

The Gateway doesn't go to the moon and back and will never be in LEO, it sits in NRHO (Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit) and waits for you to send things to it. It is also incapable of long-duration missions, it can only support a crew for 30 days. It is located in NRHO because SLS can't get Orion to low Lunar orbit, but placing it there instead of in LEO gives SLS something to do. It's not infrastructure, it's a detour and distraction, and attempt to justify the SLS.

cjameshuff · 12th April 2020, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by jadebox

The video explains the Gateway a little better than the Wikipedia article. But, still doesn't go into much detail.

It doesn't seem necessary for the missions to the moon, but I suspect it adds more value than it costs. It would start as just a hub and maybe a communications center to which modules can be later attached. If it later evolved into a real space station, it wouldn't cost much more than the ISS to operate and would provide an enhanced platform for supporting operations on the Moon.

The Gateway will be much more useful in orbit around Mars. For one thing, getting people into orbit around Mars will be much easier than getting them to the surface. Humans in orbit around Mars will be able control multiple rovers and other robotic explorers in near real time. In a few weeks, they would probably be able to explore more of Mars than all of the previous landers combined.

As far as the utility of going back to the moon before going to Mars, it seems obvious to me. Developing and testing the systems in an environment where earth is only a few days away (versus months) and communication is only delayed a few seconds (versus minutes) is one benefit.

Reaching Mars orbit takes 6-7 km/s more propulsive delta-v than landing on the surface, because you can't take advantage of the atmosphere for braking. Realistically, this means a minimum-energy trajectory that takes around 6 months each way, and of course you're stuck in orbit for the entire duration of the stay there, above the protection of the atmosphere against radiation or meteorites. Spending a couple years total in a deep space high-radiation environment to temporarily get some low latency control of some surface robots is very much not worth the expense and risk.

If you're going to Mars, go in an architecture capable of direct EDL, which we've already used to put much larger payloads on the surface than anything we've put in orbit (even while handicapping ourselves by avoiding supersonic retropropulsion). This also puts surface ice deposits within reach. Producing propellant from those would vastly reduce the amount of mass you need to send to Mars.

The Gateway's not useful for testing anything for such a mission either. Any such testing could be done by launching the actual Mars spacecraft to high Earth orbit, rather than burning resources on a "gateway".

As for staging supplies and such for lunar exploration, the obvious location to do that is on the lunar surface, not on a station in a high lunar orbit that only has launch windows every couple weeks and which requires a multi-stage lander/ascent system to reach. You could reach or return from a secondary landing site anywhere on the surface in a suborbital hop burning a fraction of the propellant required for a trip all the way back to the so-called Gateway, and you could make that hop at any time if an emergency requires it, rather than waiting for the next Gateway window. The Gateway just spreads available resources more thinly and puts everything stored at the Gateway out of easy reach for people on the surface.

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Couldn't you still send those things separately and have them rendezvous in lunar orbit without Gateway?

You could, and that is now officially the plan for the 2024 landing, since developing an orbital toll booth didn't fit in the budget or schedule: https://spacenews.com/nasa-takes-gat...-lunar-return/

They're still developing it, it's just no longer treated as being required for lunar missions.

Puppycow · 7th June 2020, 08:58 AM

Another video:

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

cjameshuff · 7th June 2020, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Another video:

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

That's a reupload of a video NASA published last December:

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

The Gateway is no longer part of the plan, the lander (one of these options: https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-t...system-awards/) is to dock directly with the Orion rather than both separately docking to the Gateway (see the article linked in my previous post).

Note they haven't canceled the Gateway (yet). They're just no longer pretending that it's needed or even helpful in getting to the moon.

Puppycow · 9th June 2020, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by cjameshuff

That's a reupload of a video NASA published last December:

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

The Gateway is no longer part of the plan, the lander (one of these options: https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-t...system-awards/) is to dock directly with the Orion rather than both separately docking to the Gateway (see the article linked in my previous post).

Note they haven't canceled the Gateway (yet). They're just no longer pretending that it's needed or even helpful in getting to the moon.

Thanks.

Garrison · 13th June 2020, 07:33 AM

So NASA has appointed a replacement for Doug Loverro as chief of Human Spaceflight. Its Kathy Lueders, previously in charge of the Commercial Crew program. Of course this appointment comes a fortnight after Demo-2 launched two astronauts to the ISS. There may also be a political message in the appointment given that Loverro lost his job by bending the rules in trying to get Boeing to come up with a competitive proposal for the HLS and Lueders has helped build the strong working relationship between NASA and SpaceX.

Article on Lueders appointment:

https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/06/1...n-spaceflight/

And one on Lovarro's dismissal:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...hy-it-matters/

Puppycow · 26th November 2020, 04:44 AM

NASA begins assembling the rocket for Artemis moon mission

Quote:

(CNN)NASA engineers have begun assembling the massive rocket designed to take the first woman to the moon later this decade as part of the Artemis program.
The first booster segment of the Space Launch System (SLS) was stacked on top of the mobile launcher at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida earlier this week in preparation for its maiden flight, NASA said Tuesday.

Confirms that they do in fact plan to put a woman on the moon in 2024.

Quote:

The rocket is a key part of NASA's Artemis lunar exploration program, which aims to send the first woman and next man to the Moon by 2024. NASA officials also hope the SLS will be used to reach Mars and other "deep space destinations."

Mikemcc · 26th November 2020, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by jadebox

The video explains the Gateway a little better than the Wikipedia article. But, still doesn't go into much detail.

It doesn't seem necessary for the missions to the moon, but I suspect it adds more value than it costs. It would start as just a hub and maybe a communications center to which modules can be later attached. If it later evolved into a real space station, it wouldn't cost much more than the ISS to operate and would provide an enhanced platform for supporting operations on the Moon.

The Gateway will be much more useful in orbit around Mars. For one thing, getting people into orbit around Mars will be much easier than getting them to the surface. Humans in orbit around Mars will be able control multiple rovers and other robotic explorers in near real time. In a few weeks, they would probably be able to explore more of Mars than all of the previous landers combined.

As far as the utility of going back to the moon before going to Mars, it seems obvious to me. Developing and testing the systems in an environment where earth is only a few days away (versus months) and communication is only delayed a few seconds (versus minutes) is one benefit.

Teleoperation makes sense from some Gateway derivative, but for manned missions on the ground a direct approach is better because you can aerobrake. That's the option SpaceX is thinking of for Starship.

a_unique_person · 30th November 2020, 04:29 AM

I think Starship will beat them to it.

Solitaire · 17th January 2022, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Mega Moon Rocket Roll Out For First Time

The combined rocket and spacecraft will move out of the Vehicle Assembly
Building at the NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida for testing not
earlier than mid-February 2022. NASA is currently reviewing the exact
date for the move. SLS and Orion will journey to Launch Pad 39B atop
the crawler-transporter-2 in preparation for the agency’s Artemis I mission.

Has NASA gone Kerbal?

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

Minimum safe viewing distance? I'll say 10 kilometers.

AmyStrange · 21st January 2022, 12:25 AM

-

Well, this is not actually about the moon mission, but it was launched with the Artemis I uncrewed test flight, and besides, this thread needs to be kicked back up to the top, because the Artemis moon mission is interesting to me...

-

Quote:

FROM: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nas...temis-i-launch

NASA Solar Sail Mission to Chase Tiny Asteroid After Artemis I Launch
(2022-01-20)

NEA Scout will visit an asteroid estimated to be smaller than a school bus – the smallest asteroid ever to be studied by a spacecraft.

Launching with the Artemis I uncrewed test flight, NASA’s shoebox-size Near-Earth Asteroid Scout will chase down what will become the smallest asteroid ever to be visited by a spacecraft. It will get there by unfurling a solar sail to harness solar radiation for propulsion, making this the agency’s first deep space mission of its kind.

The target is 2020 GE, a near-Earth asteroid (NEA) that is less than 60 feet (18 meters) in size. Asteroids smaller than 330 feet (100 meters) across have never been explored up close before. The spacecraft will use its science camera to get a closer look, measuring the object’s size, shape, rotation, and surface properties while looking for any dust and debris that might surround 2020 GE.

Because the camera has a resolution of less than 4 inches (10 centimeters) per pixel, the mission’s science team will be able to determine whether 2020 GE is solid – like a boulder – or if it’s composed of smaller rocks and dust clumped together like some of its larger asteroid cousins, such as asteroid Bennu.

“Thanks to the discoveries of NEAs by Earth-based observatories, several targets had been identified for NEA Scout, all within the 16-to-100-foot [5-to-30-meter] size range,” said Julie Castillo-Rogez, the mission’s principal science investigator at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California. “2020 GE represents a class of asteroid that we currently know very little about.”

(SNIP)

-

sts60 · 21st January 2022, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Solitaire

Has NASA gone Kerbal?
…
Minimum safe viewing distance? I'll say 10 kilometers.

If I recall correctly, the fire/rescue staging area is not that much closer than the LCC and press area; something like a kilometer away.

For crew rescue, they now use MRAPs (the mine-resistant trucks first used in Iraq (?). Not, obviously, because of fear of mines/IEDs, but because they are fast, tough, and easy to get the crew into.

One thing that is new (again) is the possibility of a Mode 1 abort from the pad. If everything goes really bad, the abort rocket will yank the crew module away and off for a parachute landing in the ocean, without the crew having to get out and hit the slidewires or be taken away by the fire/rescue crews. Last I remembered, though, this won’t be active for the unmanned launch. Shuttle, obviously, didn’t have this.

Mike! · 22nd January 2022, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

Maybe Artemis Gordon was non-binary.

Well it was the Wild Wild West after all...

Puppycow · 3rd July 2022, 05:12 AM

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

NASA trailer for the Artemis mission

24th December 2019, 09:17 PM	#2
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 27,882	As far as the naming of the mission (Artemis), the first NASA manned mission to the moon was Apollo, and in Greek mythology, Artemis was the twin sister of Apollo. She is also the goddess of the moon (as well as other things). So there's both a moon connection and an Apollo connection there.
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

25th December 2019, 06:32 AM	#3
Mike! Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it! Join Date: May 2010 Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not! Posts: 49,346	Originally Posted by Puppycow As far as the naming of the mission (Artemis), the first NASA manned mission to the moon was Apollo, and in Greek mythology, Artemis was the twin sister of Apollo. She is also the goddess of the moon (as well as other things). So there's both a moon connection and an Apollo connection there. Well that has to be the most amazing coincidence ever!
	__________________ "Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes... Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."

25th December 2019, 08:44 AM	#4
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 24,379	That's very cool! I hope to see this carried out in reality. Hans
	__________________ Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.

25th December 2019, 02:34 PM	#5
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,625	I cannot see the point of the spaceship that orbits both the moon and earth. I predict that will be one of the things that will be thrown out between now and when it happens. It also depends on the next US president endorsing this project. Apart from going to Mars what will this project achieve? The only other real reason for going back is mining.
	__________________ This signature is for rent.

25th December 2019, 02:50 PM	#6
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 63,506	Originally Posted by rjh01 I cannot see the point of the spaceship that orbits both the moon and earth. I predict that will be one of the things that will be thrown out between now and when it happens. I don't understand your objection. The point is a spaceship suitable for long-term human habitation. It can orbit Earth, Moon, Mars, Venus, the Sun... Etc. with equal facility. Obvious early stages of development will include short-duration testing in LEO, medium-duration testing in translunar and cislunar flights, and long-duration testing in both those regimes. Sending it to the moon and back means it can contribute to the development of moon-based infrastructure, in addition to developing techniques and knowledge for long-duration missions. Probably one of the first long-duration test missions will be an extended stay in LEO, where the crew and the craft are easily accessible from Earth if something breaks unexpectedly, or some unforseen crisis occurs. On top of all that, once you have a spaceship that can orbit the moon, it can also orbit the Earth. It's literally impossible to throw out "orbits the Earth" at that point. Your objection makes no physical sense, unless you're predicting that they're just not going to build a spacecraft capable of leaving LEO, which seems like a really weird prediction. tl;dr - WTF are you even talking about?
	Last edited by theprestige; 25th December 2019 at 02:55 PM.

25th December 2019, 05:04 PM	#7
Jim_MDP Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: N.Cal/S.Or Posts: 9,292	Originally Posted by rjh01 I cannot see the point of the spaceship that orbits both the moon and earth. I predict that will be one of the things that will be thrown out between now and when it happens. It also depends on the next US president endorsing this project. Apart from going to Mars what will this project achieve? The only other real reason for going back is mining. Wait... what? All we've done to date is live in the ascent/descent modules, then throw them away after the mission (outside of Earth orbit that is). Everything has been driving toward orbital habitats, surface habitats, reusable ascent/descent craft... and some functional deep space transfer ship. Gravity wells are a bitch... it doesn't make sense any other way without some yet to be developed hyper efficient and affordable power (thrust) source. Even then, the scales make more sense to; get 'em off the surface, stage in orbit, then transfer to the transit vehicle. We could have been here 30 years ago, but at least we're pushing forward once more. Still eleventyseven new issues to solve, but this is how you do it.
	__________________ ---------------------- Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything. "Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust. "Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.

25th December 2019, 05:51 PM	#8
Major Major Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 412	For the past few years, the history of manned spaceflight has been "The best is the enemy of the good." Vehicles have been developed, then discarded when something newer and cooler is proposed, only to be superseded in its turn. The Orion could have done some of the same things, but the opinion of all the other proposers of competing programs prevailed. Will Artemis be any different?

25th December 2019, 09:52 PM	#9
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,625	What I am talking about is the spacecraft called Gateway. For more details about that please watch the YouTube. I did make one small mistake. It orbits just the moon not the earth moon system as I said above. I cannot see the point of missions to the moon first having to dock with Gateway before descending to the moon. The part that descends to the moon is not reusable as they leave part of it behind. There might be a point in the future to have Gateway. If they can manufacture fuel and other parts needed to land and take off the moon on Gateway, or the moon and then send them up to Gateway. But that will not happen for years after we go back to the moon. Here is them talking about Gatewayhttps://youtu.be/_T8cn2J13-4?t=176
	__________________ This signature is for rent. Last edited by rjh01; 25th December 2019 at 09:54 PM.

25th December 2019, 10:05 PM	#10
Jim_MDP Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: N.Cal/S.Or Posts: 9,292	Originally Posted by rjh01 What I am talking about is the spacecraft called Gateway. For more details about that please watch the YouTube. I did make one small mistake. It orbits just the moon not the earth moon system as I said above. I cannot see the point of missions to the moon first having to dock with Gateway before descending to the moon. The part that descends to the moon is not reusable as they leave part of it behind. There might be a point in the future to have Gateway. If they can manufacture fuel and other parts needed to land and take off the moon on Gateway, or the moon and then send them up to Gateway. But that will not happen for years after we go back to the moon. Here is them talking about Gatewayhttps://youtu.be/_T8cn2J13-4?t=176 Good correction, fair enough. I haven't followed the project or watched the vid, so I can't comment on the details you mention. I did see a Manley vid posted a day or two ago but planned on watching it in another few days.
	__________________ ---------------------- Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything. "Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust. "Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.

26th December 2019, 12:50 AM	#11
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 27,882	The YouTube video I posted above is only 5 and a half minutes long. I know sometimes it's hard to watch videos though, e.g. at work. Here's Wikipedia entry for more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

26th December 2019, 06:49 AM	#12
jadebox Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: USA Posts: 2,439	The video explains the Gateway a little better than the Wikipedia article. But, still doesn't go into much detail. It doesn't seem necessary for the missions to the moon, but I suspect it adds more value than it costs. It would start as just a hub and maybe a communications center to which modules can be later attached. If it later evolved into a real space station, it wouldn't cost much more than the ISS to operate and would provide an enhanced platform for supporting operations on the Moon. The Gateway will be much more useful in orbit around Mars. For one thing, getting people into orbit around Mars will be much easier than getting them to the surface. Humans in orbit around Mars will be able control multiple rovers and other robotic explorers in near real time. In a few weeks, they would probably be able to explore more of Mars than all of the previous landers combined. As far as the utility of going back to the moon before going to Mars, it seems obvious to me. Developing and testing the systems in an environment where earth is only a few days away (versus months) and communication is only delayed a few seconds (versus minutes) is one benefit.
	Last edited by jadebox; 26th December 2019 at 06:56 AM.

26th December 2019, 07:05 AM	#13
jadebox Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: USA Posts: 2,439	I just hope all of this actually happens while I am around to watch! I can sort of remember watching the ghostly black and white image of Armstrong climbing down the LM's ladder to the moon. This time we will be able to follow the missions with high-def video and the astronauts Tweeting and blogging from space. The portion of the taxes I pay which goes to support space exploration amounts to about the cost of my wife and I going to a movie once a year. Nevermind the other benefits, just the entertainment I get from it is worth the cost to me!

26th December 2019, 07:09 AM	#14
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 63,506	Gateway seems like it means each mission doesn't have to be a complete LM-AM-CSM stack. You can send different combos of modules, and remix them at Gateway depending on which direction you're going.

26th December 2019, 10:11 AM	#15
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 24,379	A very important mission of Gateway is obviously research and mission planning. For the Apollo missions, landing sites had to be planned on Earth, before the mission started, and only minor modifications were possible later on. The Gateway orbits the moon and makes continuous observations, the expedition docs there and a carefully selected landing site can be chosen. I also assume the Gateway plays a crucial role in directing all the pre-placed gear. It is a far more structured approach. And of course, it points forward to expeditions further out, mainly Mars. Hans
	__________________ Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.

26th December 2019, 02:31 PM	#16
Garrison Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: UK Posts: 5,911	Originally Posted by Major Major For the past few years, the history of manned spaceflight has been "The best is the enemy of the good." Vehicles have been developed, then discarded when something newer and cooler is proposed, only to be superseded in its turn. The Orion could have done some of the same things, but the opinion of all the other proposers of competing programs prevailed. Will Artemis be any different? The major difference now is the available hardware. Much of what needed to mount a lunar mission already exists, it just a matter of money and imagination.
	__________________ So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX

26th December 2019, 06:10 PM	#17
Roboramma Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 15,173	Originally Posted by theprestige Gateway seems like it means each mission doesn't have to be a complete LM-AM-CSM stack. You can send different combos of modules, and remix them at Gateway depending on which direction you're going. Couldn't you still send those things separately and have them rendezvous in lunar orbit without Gateway?
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov

26th December 2019, 06:14 PM	#19
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 63,506	Originally Posted by Roboramma Couldn't you still send those things separately and have them rendezvous in lunar orbit without Gateway? Yes, and the ISS could have been an orbital shipyard instead of a PR stunt. The space-industrial complex moves in mysterious ways.

28th December 2019, 04:02 PM	#20
Garrison Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: UK Posts: 5,911	Originally Posted by theprestige Yes, and the ISS could have been an orbital shipyard instead of a PR stunt. The space-industrial complex moves in mysterious ways. Don't forget the desire to provide employment for a lot of ex-Soviet engineers who might have taken jobs in North Korea, Iran, etc. There was also the issue of depending on an expensive and unreliable launch system in the shape of the STS.
	__________________ So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX

28th December 2019, 04:19 PM	#21
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 4,825	My big take away on this is Artemis Gordon was named after a girl.
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 4,825	__________________ "Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

29th December 2019, 02:36 AM	#22
Jim_MDP Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: N.Cal/S.Or Posts: 9,292	Originally Posted by Wolrab My big take away on this is Artemis Gordon was named after a girl. Well... he did seem to get into drag more than might have been absolutely necessary.
	__________________ ---------------------- Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything. "Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust. "Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.

29th December 2019, 08:48 AM	#23
The Greater Fool Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 4,400	Originally Posted by Wolrab My big take away on this is Artemis Gordon was named after a girl. Originally Posted by Jim_MDP Well... he did seem to get into drag more than might have been absolutely necessary. Maybe Artemis Gordon was non-binary.
	__________________ - "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown] - "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']

12th April 2020, 06:56 AM	#25
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 35,959	The most awesome thing about that video was new lunar hardware arriving on a 1940's airplane!
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

12th April 2020, 06:40 PM	#27
cjameshuff Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 370	Originally Posted by theprestige I don't understand your objection. The point is a spaceship suitable for long-term human habitation. It can orbit Earth, Moon, Mars, Venus, the Sun... Etc. with equal facility. Obvious early stages of development will include short-duration testing in LEO, medium-duration testing in translunar and cislunar flights, and long-duration testing in both those regimes. Sending it to the moon and back means it can contribute to the development of moon-based infrastructure, in addition to developing techniques and knowledge for long-duration missions. Probably one of the first long-duration test missions will be an extended stay in LEO, where the crew and the craft are easily accessible from Earth if something breaks unexpectedly, or some unforseen crisis occurs. On top of all that, once you have a spaceship that can orbit the moon, it can also orbit the Earth. It's literally impossible to throw out "orbits the Earth" at that point. Your objection makes no physical sense, unless you're predicting that they're just not going to build a spacecraft capable of leaving LEO, which seems like a really weird prediction. tl;dr - WTF are you even talking about? The Gateway doesn't go to the moon and back and will never be in LEO, it sits in NRHO (Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit) and waits for you to send things to it. It is also incapable of long-duration missions, it can only support a crew for 30 days. It is located in NRHO because SLS can't get Orion to low Lunar orbit, but placing it there instead of in LEO gives SLS something to do. It's not infrastructure, it's a detour and distraction, and attempt to justify the SLS.

12th April 2020, 07:15 PM	#28
cjameshuff Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 370	Originally Posted by jadebox The video explains the Gateway a little better than the Wikipedia article. But, still doesn't go into much detail. It doesn't seem necessary for the missions to the moon, but I suspect it adds more value than it costs. It would start as just a hub and maybe a communications center to which modules can be later attached. If it later evolved into a real space station, it wouldn't cost much more than the ISS to operate and would provide an enhanced platform for supporting operations on the Moon. The Gateway will be much more useful in orbit around Mars. For one thing, getting people into orbit around Mars will be much easier than getting them to the surface. Humans in orbit around Mars will be able control multiple rovers and other robotic explorers in near real time. In a few weeks, they would probably be able to explore more of Mars than all of the previous landers combined. As far as the utility of going back to the moon before going to Mars, it seems obvious to me. Developing and testing the systems in an environment where earth is only a few days away (versus months) and communication is only delayed a few seconds (versus minutes) is one benefit. Reaching Mars orbit takes 6-7 km/s more propulsive delta-v than landing on the surface, because you can't take advantage of the atmosphere for braking. Realistically, this means a minimum-energy trajectory that takes around 6 months each way, and of course you're stuck in orbit for the entire duration of the stay there, above the protection of the atmosphere against radiation or meteorites. Spending a couple years total in a deep space high-radiation environment to temporarily get some low latency control of some surface robots is very much not worth the expense and risk. If you're going to Mars, go in an architecture capable of direct EDL, which we've already used to put much larger payloads on the surface than anything we've put in orbit (even while handicapping ourselves by avoiding supersonic retropropulsion). This also puts surface ice deposits within reach. Producing propellant from those would vastly reduce the amount of mass you need to send to Mars. The Gateway's not useful for testing anything for such a mission either. Any such testing could be done by launching the actual Mars spacecraft to high Earth orbit, rather than burning resources on a "gateway". As for staging supplies and such for lunar exploration, the obvious location to do that is on the lunar surface, not on a station in a high lunar orbit that only has launch windows every couple weeks and which requires a multi-stage lander/ascent system to reach. You could reach or return from a secondary landing site anywhere on the surface in a suborbital hop burning a fraction of the propellant required for a trip all the way back to the so-called Gateway, and you could make that hop at any time if an emergency requires it, rather than waiting for the next Gateway window. The Gateway just spreads available resources more thinly and puts everything stored at the Gateway out of easy reach for people on the surface. Originally Posted by Roboramma Couldn't you still send those things separately and have them rendezvous in lunar orbit without Gateway? You could, and that is now officially the plan for the 2024 landing, since developing an orbital toll booth didn't fit in the budget or schedule: https://spacenews.com/nasa-takes-gat...-lunar-return/ They're still developing it, it's just no longer treated as being required for lunar missions.

13th June 2020, 07:33 AM	#32
Garrison Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: UK Posts: 5,911	So NASA has appointed a replacement for Doug Loverro as chief of Human Spaceflight. Its Kathy Lueders, previously in charge of the Commercial Crew program. Of course this appointment comes a fortnight after Demo-2 launched two astronauts to the ISS. There may also be a political message in the appointment given that Loverro lost his job by bending the rules in trying to get Boeing to come up with a competitive proposal for the HLS and Lueders has helped build the strong working relationship between NASA and SpaceX. Article on Lueders appointment: https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/06/1...n-spaceflight/ And one on Lovarro's dismissal: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...hy-it-matters/
	__________________ So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX Last edited by Garrison; 13th June 2020 at 07:34 AM.

26th November 2020, 04:44 AM	#33
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 27,882	NASA begins assembling the rocket for Artemis moon mission Quote: (CNN)NASA engineers have begun assembling the massive rocket designed to take the first woman to the moon later this decade as part of the Artemis program. The first booster segment of the Space Launch System (SLS) was stacked on top of the mobile launcher at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida earlier this week in preparation for its maiden flight, NASA said Tuesday. Confirms that they do in fact plan to put a woman on the moon in 2024. Quote: The rocket is a key part of NASA's Artemis lunar exploration program, which aims to send the first woman and next man to the Moon by 2024. NASA officials also hope the SLS will be used to reach Mars and other "deep space destinations."
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

26th November 2020, 11:07 AM	#34
Mikemcc Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: UK Posts: 1,911	Originally Posted by jadebox The video explains the Gateway a little better than the Wikipedia article. But, still doesn't go into much detail. It doesn't seem necessary for the missions to the moon, but I suspect it adds more value than it costs. It would start as just a hub and maybe a communications center to which modules can be later attached. If it later evolved into a real space station, it wouldn't cost much more than the ISS to operate and would provide an enhanced platform for supporting operations on the Moon. The Gateway will be much more useful in orbit around Mars. For one thing, getting people into orbit around Mars will be much easier than getting them to the surface. Humans in orbit around Mars will be able control multiple rovers and other robotic explorers in near real time. In a few weeks, they would probably be able to explore more of Mars than all of the previous landers combined. As far as the utility of going back to the moon before going to Mars, it seems obvious to me. Developing and testing the systems in an environment where earth is only a few days away (versus months) and communication is only delayed a few seconds (versus minutes) is one benefit. Teleoperation makes sense from some Gateway derivative, but for manned missions on the ground a direct approach is better because you can aerobrake. That's the option SpaceX is thinking of for Starship.

30th November 2020, 04:29 AM	#35
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open. Posts: 45,027	I think Starship will beat them to it.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. “Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos

21st January 2022, 12:25 AM	#37
AmyStrange Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: PNW Posts: 1,998	- Well, this is not actually about the moon mission, but it was launched with the Artemis I uncrewed test flight, and besides, this thread needs to be kicked back up to the top, because the Artemis moon mission is interesting to me... - Quote: FROM: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nas...temis-i-launch NASA Solar Sail Mission to Chase Tiny Asteroid After Artemis I Launch (2022-01-20) NEA Scout will visit an asteroid estimated to be smaller than a school bus – the smallest asteroid ever to be studied by a spacecraft. Launching with the Artemis I uncrewed test flight, NASA’s shoebox-size Near-Earth Asteroid Scout will chase down what will become the smallest asteroid ever to be visited by a spacecraft. It will get there by unfurling a solar sail to harness solar radiation for propulsion, making this the agency’s first deep space mission of its kind. The target is 2020 GE, a near-Earth asteroid (NEA) that is less than 60 feet (18 meters) in size. Asteroids smaller than 330 feet (100 meters) across have never been explored up close before. The spacecraft will use its science camera to get a closer look, measuring the object’s size, shape, rotation, and surface properties while looking for any dust and debris that might surround 2020 GE. Because the camera has a resolution of less than 4 inches (10 centimeters) per pixel, the mission’s science team will be able to determine whether 2020 GE is solid – like a boulder – or if it’s composed of smaller rocks and dust clumped together like some of its larger asteroid cousins, such as asteroid Bennu. “Thanks to the discoveries of NEAs by Earth-based observatories, several targets had been identified for NEA Scout, all within the 16-to-100-foot [5-to-30-meter] size range,” said Julie Castillo-Rogez, the mission’s principal science investigator at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California. “2020 GE represents a class of asteroid that we currently know very little about.” (SNIP) -
	__________________ The most unbelievable crime-fighting team of all time. Read the horrifying beginning here (for FREE): http://www.amystrange.org/ Last edited by AmyStrange; 21st January 2022 at 12:33 AM. Reason: kicking this back up to the top and more...

21st January 2022, 09:22 PM	#38
sts60 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,053	Originally Posted by Solitaire Has NASA gone Kerbal? … Minimum safe viewing distance? I'll say 10 kilometers. If I recall correctly, the fire/rescue staging area is not that much closer than the LCC and press area; something like a kilometer away. For crew rescue, they now use MRAPs (the mine-resistant trucks first used in Iraq (?). Not, obviously, because of fear of mines/IEDs, but because they are fast, tough, and easy to get the crew into. One thing that is new (again) is the possibility of a Mode 1 abort from the pad. If everything goes really bad, the abort rocket will yank the crew module away and off for a parachute landing in the ocean, without the crew having to get out and hit the slidewires or be taken away by the fire/rescue crews. Last I remembered, though, this won’t be active for the unmanned launch. Shuttle, obviously, didn’t have this.
sts60 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,053

22nd January 2022, 05:51 AM	#39
Mike! Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it! Join Date: May 2010 Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not! Posts: 49,346	Originally Posted by The Greater Fool Maybe Artemis Gordon was non-binary. Well it was the Wild Wild West after all...
	__________________ "Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes... Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."