Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 35 of 44

Thread: Artemis

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Mississippi Gulf Coast
    Posts
    932

    Default Artemis

    Jack
    Nicotine free since 1 October 2009

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Dubai, UAE
    Posts
    444

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by JTA View Post
    Darth Vader seems to be taking a real interest in proceedings

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK. Cornwall, Suffolk.
    Posts
    9,414

    Default Re: Artemis

    Why are we sending humans to the moon again?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    the hills
    Posts
    68,056

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by lupussonic View Post
    Why are we sending humans to the moon again?
    selfies

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Baltimore Maryland
    Posts
    11,832

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by lupussonic View Post
    Why are we sending humans to the moon again?
    Because it's there.
    You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
    Mahatma Gandhi

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,756

    Default Re: Artemis

    Covert resupply.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    o
    Posts
    10,519

    Default Re: Artemis

    Because NASA, at least, has a vision a little further than the next budget cycle, and establishing a Moon base, is a logical next step to further, manned, up close and personal exploration of our solar system. The current head of the agency, former lunar orbiting astronaut, has said recently that the agency intends to eventually establish a Mars base, too. This kind of manned exploration is what we do, and it’s about more, way more, than just finding the shortest way to the orient for spices and a knighthood from Her Majesty. And it is an over-determined choice, more factors than just calculating the expense of lifting building and survival materials from the gravity well of Earth. I, for one, would be much happier spending taxes, and private donor funding, on that than on making the world safe for democracy. Though it would be nice if we could burn through our stock of military equipment burying Putin and his dream of Russian motherland empire, first.


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Southampton Ont. Canada
    Posts
    7,400

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by lupussonic View Post
    Why are we sending humans to the moon again?
    Faked it the first time and CGI is better nowadays.
    R
    Sleep with one eye open.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK. Cornwall, Suffolk.
    Posts
    9,414

    Default Re: Artemis

    But our technology does not permit humans to go beyond what we can see with telescopes (re exploration), let alone barely survive on the next rock over. Why do we think this is a good idea?

    Terraforming, food growth, respiration, adapting to different gravities, radiation...all are extremely difficult logistical and technological challenges to overcome, and in the mean time, we can see much farther. It doesn't make sense to me. In the tree climbing world we have a saying.. 'Don't go here, if you can throw there'.

    Also in the mean time the Earth; our easy, beautiful home is trashed and is deemed expendable.

    I'd challenge anyone to enjoy living a year on the moon. What a crock of ****.. Mars? Are you kidding?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    31,338

    Default Re: Artemis

    ^ You lack a certain historical sense of adventure, I see.

    Again, however, I say that it is sort of anti-climatic that after all these years all they can come up with is an up-sized Apollo capsule.
    Gerard>
    Albuquerque, NM

    Next election, vote against EVERY Republican, for EVERY office, at EVERY level. Be patriotic, save the country.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    o
    Posts
    10,519

    Default Re: Artemis

    Multi-billion dollar ‘baby’ steps. Of course it’s all a terribly difficult technical challenge. So is building a device to witness and measure sub-atomic particles, but we have several city-sized devices doing that in different countries. We also have highly sophisticated robots doing research on the deep ocean floor and still spend the money and develop the tech to get a hands on human down their, too. And Earth isn’t expendable and no one really thinks so on spite of appearances. But in another century we will be dead and our descendants will inhabit a different world and the thoughtful ones will appreciate the research we are doing now that becomes the basis for the things they’ll accomplish that we can now only dream of. Just like Magellan and Watt and Einstein.


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Mountain lakes of Vermont
    Posts
    18,033

    Default Re: Artemis

    The leaky bucket of bolts crapped out again today.
    Launch scrubbed.
    Back to the drawing board.
    I was born on a wooden boat that I built myself.
    Skiing is the next best thing to having wings.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Saint Helena Island, SC
    Posts
    12,598

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Jones View Post
    The leaky bucket of bolts crapped out again today.
    Launch scrubbed.
    Back to the drawing board.
    Is Boeing involved?
    Fight Entropy, build a wooden boat!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Duncan, Vancouver Island
    Posts
    29,422

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by Reynard38 View Post
    Is Boeing involved?
    I think they ordered it from Amazon.
    There is no rational, logical, or physical description of how free will could exist. It therefore makes no sense to praise or condemn anyone on the grounds they are a free willed self that made one choice but could have chosen something else. There is no evidence that such a situation is possible in our Universe. Demonstrate otherwise and I will be thrilled.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Mountain lakes of Vermont
    Posts
    18,033

    Default Re: Artemis

    Seems that they are using 50 year old technology. What's so hard?
    I was born on a wooden boat that I built myself.
    Skiing is the next best thing to having wings.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    119,429

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Jones View Post
    Seems that they are using 50 year old technology. What's so hard?
    chilling and containing 700,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen at negative 252 degrees celsius seems to be the issue
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    24,698

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    chilling and containing 700,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen at negative 252 degrees celsius seems to be the issue
    They need one of those Yeti coolers, maybe?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    the hills
    Posts
    68,056

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by lupussonic View Post
    But our technology does not permit humans to go beyond what we can see with telescopes (re exploration), let alone barely survive on the next rock over. Why do we think this is a good idea?

    Terraforming, food growth, respiration, adapting to different gravities, radiation...all are extremely difficult logistical and technological challenges to overcome, and in the mean time, we can see much farther. It doesn't make sense to me. In the tree climbing world we have a saying.. 'Don't go here, if you can throw there'.

    Also in the mean time the Earth; our easy, beautiful home is trashed and is deemed expendable.

    I'd challenge anyone to enjoy living a year on the moon. What a crock of ****.. Mars? Are you kidding?
    It’s a spinoff from the MIC.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Baltimore Maryland
    Posts
    11,832

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    chilling and containing 700,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen at negative 252 degrees celsius seems to be the issue
    The shuttle's external tank held what, 400,000 gallons?
    You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
    Mahatma Gandhi

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    o
    Posts
    10,519

    Default Re: Artemis

    Leak in an eight inch fuel line for the liquid hydrogen.


  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    new zealand
    Posts
    6,034

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    chilling and containing 700,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen at negative 252 degrees celsius seems to be the issue
    That is a nice summary of why space x uses doesn't use hydrogen - the chilling and containing part, and all the associated costs.
    Hopefully we get a good launch tomorrow.

    Pete
    The Ignore feature, lowering blood pressure since 1862. Ahhhhhhh.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    o
    Posts
    10,519

    Default Re: Artemis

    News is that the evaluation and fix is going to take a bit and the launch window is moved to late September or mid-October.


  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK. Cornwall, Suffolk.
    Posts
    9,414

    Default Re: Artemis

    The Challenger disaster taught us that manned space travel will never be routine. If getting it off the ground is still a problem I can't fathom the mindless optimism that laid the foundation for the idea of a sustained moon base. It's too early in our technological evolution, and given what we can discover with Voyager, Hubble and now JWST the actual exploration quotient is negligible.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK. Cornwall, Suffolk.
    Posts
    9,414

    Default Re: Artemis

    If it even exists at all.

    Seriously what's the real reason behind this folly? Resource wars / MIC?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    o
    Posts
    10,519

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by lupussonic View Post
    The Challenger disaster taught us that manned space travel will never be routine. If getting it off the ground is still a problem I can't fathom the mindless optimism that laid the foundation for the idea of a sustained moon base. It's too early in our technological evolution, and given what we can discover with Voyager, Hubble and now JWST the actual exploration quotient is negligible.
    That you can't fathom it doesn't make it mindless. You weren't available to consult so they had to settle for a mere scientist who happens to have spent actual time in space orbiting the moon?

    The Challenger disaster taught valuable lessons but you're making a jump that's unwarranted. It was never, at least in our lifetimes, routine.

    We should wait around while our technical evolution matures, and then maybe try again and then it will make sense? Because making better something that has nothing to do with manned exploration gives us the necessary tech to try again? What's going to mature our tech enough to make it reasonable enough for you, if we aren't pushing the actual tech to do the maturing of it? Make more video games or faster phone connections or better scientific Mars rovers?

    The Europeans of the fifteenth century should've just stayed in their local waters instead of mindlessly sailing off the edge of the planet because they already had plenty good enough maps of the world, and after all who really needs more exotic spice for their pizza? And the people who invented steam engines and decided it would be good to build iron carriages and rail tracks, between cities, for gods' sake, shouldn't have bothered because everyone knows that travelling ten miles an hour isn't natural and people will swoon and die from it, and besides think of all that extra coal they'd have to have, and then where would all the bad little boys and girls get their stocking stuffers at Christmas time? And ships made from iron? What are you nutz? Iron don't float, that would be dangerous and pointless.

    Why should we bother with any sci-fi when all it does is inspire people to think that we might eventually do something worthwhile to expand humanity off our home planet? Especially since only a mere handful of extremists have ever wondered about that. It's not like all of humanity has longed to go to space for all those reasons.

    You know one of things that landed on Mars as part of the rover that's been mapping the surface and doing science is a suitcase sized instrument that generates oxygen from processing the Martian surface material?
    Last edited by Jim Mahan; 09-04-2022 at 07:29 AM.


  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    6,972

    Default Re: Artemis

    Solving these hard technical problems tends to spawn a new generation of engineers and scientists who can apply the knowledge gained to solving problems here on earth.
    Will

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    o
    Posts
    10,519

    Default Re: Artemis

    Let's turn the question around a bit. If we did have the tech to easily, and even cheaply, get everything we need to make both a Moon base and a Mars base, would it be worthwhile then to do it? What if we discovered something totally unexpected about ourselves by having people live and work on the Moon for, say, a few years? What if the discovery was profound, something like, those Moon worker scientists came back to Earth after their two year tour of duty with forty percent more body mass and IQs in the two hundred range, or the ability to regenerate lost limbs or metabolize something out of the Moon geology that would some day obviate our current best agriculture thus saving us from having to sustain great herds of food animals and monoculture crops enough feed the growing global population, or something that will help clean up humanity's toxic waste from the oceans?


  28. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    40,208

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Mahan View Post
    Let's turn the question around a bit. If we did have the tech to easily, and even cheaply, get everything we need to make both a Moon base and a Mars base, would it be worthwhile then to do it?
    I tell my research students that if you're not making mistakes, then you're not doing something hard, and if your not doing something hard, you're not having fun.

    Regrettably, these mistakes involve human lives...
    "Where you live in the world should not determine whether you live in the world." - Bono

    "Live in such a way that you would not be ashamed to sell your parrot to the town gossip." - Will Rogers

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK. Cornwall, Suffolk.
    Posts
    9,414

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Mahan View Post
    That you can't fathom it doesn't make it mindless. You weren't available to consult so they had to settle for a mere scientist who happens to have spent actual time in space orbiting the moon?

    The Challenger disaster taught valuable lessons but you're making a jump that's unwarranted. It was never, at least in our lifetimes, routine.

    We should wait around while our technical evolution matures, and then maybe try again and then it will make sense? Because making better something that has nothing to do with manned exploration gives us the necessary tech to try again? What's going to mature our tech enough to make it reasonable enough for you, if we aren't pushing the actual tech to do the maturing of it? Make more video games or faster phone connections or better scientific Mars rovers?

    The Europeans of the fifteenth century should've just stayed in their local waters instead of mindlessly sailing off the edge of the planet because they already had plenty good enough maps of the world, and after all who really needs more exotic spice for their pizza? And the people who invented steam engines and decided it would be good to build iron carriages and rail tracks, between cities, for gods' sake, shouldn't have bothered because everyone knows that travelling ten miles an hour isn't natural and people will swoon and die from it, and besides think of all that extra coal they'd have to have, and then where would all the bad little boys and girls get their stocking stuffers at Christmas time? And ships made from iron? What are you nutz? Iron don't float, that would be dangerous and pointless.

    Why should we bother with any sci-fi when all it does is inspire people to think that we might eventually do something worthwhile to expand humanity off our home planet? Especially since only a mere handful of extremists have ever wondered about that. It's not like all of humanity has longed to go to space for all those reasons.

    You know one of things that landed on Mars as part of the rover that's been mapping the surface and doing science is a suitcase sized instrument that generates oxygen from processing the Martian surface material?
    Jim you seem to have deflected my cynicism to your own direction or at least towards an easier answer to give. Talking about this subject is an attempt to predict and philosophise about the human endeavour and it's possible future(s) and this is fraught with pitfalls and generalisations that are wide open to counter point that this forum loves so much, and I realise I am open here. Yes there are holes in my argument, have at it, I know they are there.

    I am not anti-technology, nor anti-exploration, nor anti-learning. A moon or Mars base is not exploration though. We know more about it the surfaces of those two places better than some places on Earth. In the mean time our telescopes can analyse the age of helium millions of light years away. Hadron and Webb are far more instructive to the furtherment of human knowledge than possible anything we have ever done, and I get it and applaud it.

    I just think that at THIS moment in time (which is very different from the 1960's) we are faced with tremendous earthly problems like mass extinctions, a superheated planet, resource wars and all the rest of it, and it feels to me like chances and resources are being squandered again on something hair brained and deeply unhelpful.

    I also am conscious of the fact that this planet has been come to be thought of as our evolutionary springboard, a place where we grew up but will no longer be useful to us as we spread our monkey wings and zoom across the stars to terraform distant planets and have fine adventures. The idea that Earth is a pile of resources for us that can be used up as fast as we please because we're off to Mars pretty soon so what the hey, is as childish as it is deeply deeply sad. This life, our story as a species, in no way relates to the comic book science fiction of American 1950's optimism and should not be thought of as such, even unconsciously. Actually I think the thought of an expendable Earth were started with the Atomic bomb, but I digress... This planet is our home, our only home, we are made of it and made to fit in with it.

    The fact we are trashing it speaks volumes about our possible successes elsewhere, and this latest glitch in a hydrogen line is absolutely QED to my argument. Yes we should delay manned space exploration for several thousand years. We are still using nuts and bolts when higher technology we have not invented yet is required.

    I'd much rather we got our foundations in order first before attempting topping off.





    I did read a little of Normans thread.. was real busy at the time and could not contribute.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    28,537

    Default Re: Artemis

    I just like watching big rockets take off. And of course it’s nice when the bit that is meant to come back does so as intended.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  31. #31
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    the hills
    Posts
    68,056

    Default Re: Artemis

    SLS is like a big wooden boat. Makes no economic sense but it’s fun and employs a lot of workers.


    https://arstechnica.com/science/2022...unsustainable/

    NASA Inspector General Paul Martin serves as an independent watchdog for the space agency's myriad activities. For nearly the entirety of his time as inspector general, since his appointment in 2009, Martin has tracked NASA's development of the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft.
    .
    .
    Martin said that the operational costs alone for a single Artemis launch—for just the rocket, Orion spacecraft, and ground systems—will total $4.1 billion. This is, he said, "a price tag that strikes us as unsustainable." With this comment, Martin essentially threw down his gauntlet and said NASA cannot have a meaningful exploration program based around SLS and Orion at this cost.
    .
    What is striking about these costs is that they do not include the tens of billions of dollars that NASA has already spent developing the Orion spacecraft since 2005 and the Space Launch System rocket since 2011. If one were to amortize development costs over 10 flights of the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, the $4.1 billion figure cited by Martin would easily double.
    .
    Martin also said NASA is obscuring costs that it is spending on the Artemis program and that, in aggregate, his office believes NASA will spend $93 billion from 2012 to 2025 on the Artemis program.
    My understanding is that after this one test flight the next one is crewed. ONE test flight.
    $93 billion, Makes the Zumwalt destroyer program look lean.

    $93 billion for a $4billion a launch vehicle that will probably become obsolete w Space X in operation. All this to retain the space shuttle engines and boosters,
    Last edited by LeeG; 09-04-2022 at 12:03 PM.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    the hills
    Posts
    68,056

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post
    I just like watching big rockets take off. And of course it’s nice when the bit that is meant to come back does so as intended.
    absolutely. Seems to me with the large loads needed for camping on the moon and Mars that one shot boosters out of the gravity well is kinda pricey compared to reusable boosters and LEO refueling. It’s like the SR-71 needing refueling to complete a mission instead of making it big enough to take off with all that fuel.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    28,537

    Default Re: Artemis

    There were three unmanned Saturn V launches for the Apollo program, the third of which was a partial failure. The first launch was put back by almost a year due to difficulties on the launch pad.

    I say NASA are doing well.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    new zealand
    Posts
    6,034

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by lupussonic View Post
    Jim you seem to have deflected my cynicism to your own direction or at least towards an easier answer to give. Talking about this subject is an attempt to predict and philosophise about the human endeavour and it's possible future(s) and this is fraught with pitfalls and generalisations that are wide open to counter point that this forum loves so much, and I realise I am open here. Yes there are holes in my argument, have at it, I know they are there.

    I am not anti-technology, nor anti-exploration, nor anti-learning. A moon or Mars base is not exploration though. We know more about it the surfaces of those two places better than some places on Earth.
    If you can do it on the moon, you can probably do it on Mars and quite likely many other planets. But if it all turns to custard, three days later you're back on Earth.
    It's walk before you can run stuff - the very definition of exploration, though I'm curious about where you set that bar as it seems astronomically high. No pun intended.

    Pete
    The Ignore feature, lowering blood pressure since 1862. Ahhhhhhh.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    new zealand
    Posts
    6,034

    Default Re: Artemis

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post
    There were three unmanned Saturn V launches for the Apollo program, the third of which was a partial failure. The first launch was put back by almost a year due to difficulties on the launch pad.

    I say NASA are doing well.
    I'm amazed at how much NASA seem to have unlearned in the last 50 years . The SpaceX "fail fast, fail often" approach is the polar opposite.

    Pete
    The Ignore feature, lowering blood pressure since 1862. Ahhhhhhh.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •