Artemis 2

Look how little it is!

I love the comment, "We have four greens, four greens!"

Presumably a traffic light system?
It seems the first one in was a medical officer and gave the “Four green”...
A medical officer inside the Orion capsule confirms all four members of the crew are green.
"Green, meaning they are feeling great, not the complexion of their skin," jokes Megan Cruz, speaking on behalf of Nasa from the USS John P Murtha, where the astronauts will be taken shortly.

Just how many people can get into that capsule?
Each astronaut had an individual assistant enter the capsule.
The side hatch of the Orion module is now open, with one of the Navy personnel having entered the spacecraft.
Four personnel are due to enter the module, which Nasa describes as "a little bit of a tight squeeze".
This is to allow each astronaut to have an individual assessing them.
Nasa has said there is "no rush" to get the crew out, with the priority being their safety.
So, is that four entering the capsule or five? I'm confused.
All quotes BBC
 
Last edited:
Dr Becky, she's smart, Oxford PhD and fellow, Bolton lass so just up t'road from us lot (Mancs)
She is also cool, charismatic and pretty.
She is also recovering from cancer, didn't make a deal, just a quick update and reach out to others with that diagnosis.
Brave and selfless too, good girl.
Her "Sky at night" vids are informative and concise, the deeper science stuff from conference feedback and published papers, fantastic.

However, fuck you Dr Becky! I'm pissed off, Et tu (EXCHEM and Vat I'm sticking to this for now so sod off) Beckymus maximus.

Artemis 2 a waste of money...

No real science....

Just political?

This agrees with pretty much everyone on the site apart from me and Canada Dave I think.

Members, enjoy.

Artemis assessment begins at 7.10 ish


 
Dr Becky, she's smart, Oxford PhD and fellow, Bolton lass so just up t'road from us lot (Mancs)
She is also cool, charismatic and pretty.
She is also recovering from cancer, didn't make a deal, just a quick update and reach out to others with that diagnosis.
Brave and selfless too, good girl.
Her "Sky at night" vids are informative and concise, the deeper science stuff from conference feedback and published papers, fantastic.

However, fuck you Dr Becky! I'm pissed off, Et tu (EXCHEM and Vat I'm sticking to this for now so sod off) Beckymus maximus.

Artemis 2 a waste of money...

No real science....

Just political?

This agrees with pretty much everyone on the site apart from me and Canada Dave I think.

Members, enjoy.

Artemis assessment begins at 7.10 ish


Well what I understand her to say is that from the viewpoint of science information the trip was of little value. But she does acknowledge the existence of other reasons beside science for the Artemis programme, namely geopolitical (beating the Chinese) and, curiously I thought, economic.

On the latter, she suggests there might be profit to be made in mining the Moon. I wonder if that is true. Do you know of any proposal to mine the Moon for substances of commercial value? I can't immediately think what that might be.
 
Well what I understand her to say is that from the viewpoint of science information the trip was of little value. But she does acknowledge the existence of other reasons beside science for the Artemis programme, namely geopolitical (beating the Chinese) and, curiously I thought, economic.

On the latter, she suggests there might be profit to be made in mining the Moon. I wonder if that is true. Do you know of any proposal to mine the Moon for substances of commercial value? I can't immediately think what that might be.
I asked a mate, a reliable human source, he said Titanium.
Not my forte.
 
Do you know of any proposal to mine the Moon for substances of commercial value? I can't immediately think what that might be.
The big one is Helium-3 for aneutronic fusion. But that is very speculative since we don't even have D-T fusion yet, and aneutronic fusion is much farther out.

The other materials are all normal materials - oxygen, water, aluminum, nitrates, titanium, rare earths, potassium and phosphorous. Nothing we can't get on Earth. But it is MUCH cheaper in the long run to get them there than to haul all that stuff to the Moon if we have a permanent presence there.
 
The big one is Helium-3 for aneutronic fusion. But that is very speculative since we don't even have D-T fusion yet, and aneutronic fusion is much farther out.

The other materials are all normal materials - oxygen, water, aluminum, nitrates, titanium, rare earths, potassium and phosphorous. Nothing we can't get on Earth. But it is MUCH cheaper in the long run to get them there than to haul all that stuff to the Moon if we have a permanent presence there.
Ah, so the economic argument only applies if the objective is to build a Moon settlement. Which invites the question of why one might want to build a Moon settlement. Hard to resist the impression of something disappearing up its own arse.
 
Ah, so the economic argument only applies if the objective is to build a Moon settlement. Which invites the question of why one might want to build a Moon settlement.
Because otherwise we're trapped on this rock at the bottom of a steep gravity well? Can we continue to expand as a species without eating up our planet from the inside?

If not now, when?
 
Because otherwise we're trapped on this rock at the bottom of a steep gravity well? Can we continue to expand as a species without eating up our planet from the inside?

If not now, when?
But we aren’t expanding as a species. The population is forecast to stabilise and then fall.

In space travel, the numbers are awful. I don’t think it makes sense, sadly.
 
But we aren’t expanding as a species. The population is forecast to stabilise and then fall.

In space travel, the numbers are awful. I don’t think it makes sense, sadly.
Sometimes I think we hominids need to start expanding more into inner space. We don't need more billions of us, or more shiny gadgets to do that. No life where compassion, love, wonder, and illumination can be found is stagnant.

Sincerely, Ned "Vat" Ludd
 
Cause? Or effect?

i.e. are we stagnating because were trapped here?



Does moon base fall under "space travel"?
No the population is stabilising because women are now able to control their fertility, and because they are increasingly able to do the same things as men in society. You see this pattern in every society as female emancipation takes hold. The challenge is for a stable population to learn to live sustainably.

Space flight has its uses, for satellites for communication, surveillance and perhaps in future energy capture from the sun. I doubt the Moon really has much to contribute. The fact we left it alone for half a century after learning how to get there tells us something. The only reason we are now returning is Trump’s ego.

Moon base to do what?
 
Last edited:
Space flight has its uses, for satellites for communication, surveillance and perhaps in future energy capture from the sun. I doubt the Moon really has much to contribute. The fact we left it alone for half a century after learning how to get there tells us something. The only reason we are now returning is Trump’s ego.

Moon base to do what?
It's a stepping stone to become a multi-planet species, which ultimately does increase the chances of our survival as a species long-term, should anything happen to Earth (self-inflicted or otherwise). But then until we learn how to expand beyond our own solar-system, we're limited to being a one-system species. Then one-galaxy... oh, the nihilism of it all! ;)

As to why the moon and not, say, straight to Mars, then it's about learning the ropes in a "safer" location. Sure, the environments of the two bodies are different, but we can get used to manned space-flight, improve the operations, the safety, etc. A more luxurious toilet is one thing, for example!! Learning how to operate in a lower gravity (Mars is roughly 1/3g, the moon roughly 1/6g), what sort of construction works (notwithstanding different requirements/environments), protocols, etc. Probably best to learn such stuff, or as much as we can, where rescue is only a few days away rather than months/years. Consider it a proving ground / test-bed for the techniques and earth-side operations, rather than anything specific to being on the moon, although once there I'm sure there will also be much to learn/try about the moon.
Is there an urgency, though? Not really. We haven't returned for 50+ years, and nothing has pushed up the need since then. It's nice to have a focus, though, to keep pushing toward something rather than just repeating the same old same old.
 
It's a stepping stone to become a multi-planet species, which ultimately does increase the chances of our survival as a species long-term, should anything happen to Earth (self-inflicted or otherwise). But then until we learn how to expand beyond our own solar-system, we're limited to being a one-system species. Then one-galaxy... oh, the nihilism of it all! ;)

As to why the moon and not, say, straight to Mars, then it's about learning the ropes in a "safer" location. Sure, the environments of the two bodies are different, but we can get used to manned space-flight, improve the operations, the safety, etc. A more luxurious toilet is one thing, for example!! Learning how to operate in a lower gravity (Mars is roughly 1/3g, the moon roughly 1/6g), what sort of construction works (notwithstanding different requirements/environments), protocols, etc. Probably best to learn such stuff, or as much as we can, where rescue is only a few days away rather than months/years. Consider it a proving ground / test-bed for the techniques and earth-side operations, rather than anything specific to being on the moon, although once there I'm sure there will also be much to learn/try about the moon.
Is there an urgency, though? Not really. We haven't returned for 50+ years, and nothing has pushed up the need since then. It's nice to have a focus, though, to keep pushing toward something rather than just repeating the same old same old.
Yeah but we will never expand beyond our solar system - because the numbers are awful. It would take centuries to get even to the nearest star, let alone any habitable planet. So it's a stepping stone to bugger all, as far as I can see.

Like many baby boomers I was raised on the tantalising prospect of travel to the stars. But now I try to see this through the eyes of the next generation. What was different back in the 1960s was firstly that people believed in exponential population growth, something now shown to be wrong, and secondly, that there were no integrated circuits, so virtually no IT. Now that we have highly capable IT-driven systems, we can explore the solar system far more cheaply and effectively and with far less risk by the use of automated probes and remote sensing. So it seems to me the rationale for sending human beings on these difficult, costly and risky voyages has rather collapsed. I don't think the prospect inspires my son's generation in the way it inspired mine. They are worried about getting the Earth's climate under control.

It seems to me the real motive for sending people back to the Moon, or to Mars, when one strips away all the bullshit, is that it is just like climbing Everest: achieving something difficult just for the hell of it, even though in itself it is a pointless goal. That is a traditional thing for human beings to do, so I don't dismiss it entirely, but I don't think we should kid ourselves about the motives.
 
Yeah but we will never expand beyond our solar system - because the numbers are awful. It would take centuries to get even to the nearest star, let alone any habitable planet. So it's a stepping stone to bugger all, as far as I can see.
We don't know what we don't know. Getting beyond our solar system is a problem to worry about long into the future. It may be that if/when we're comfortable enough with space-travel within our solar system, with recycling tech, that people are willing to take a journey into the depths, so to speak. For people to commit to a one-way generational starship that, for all intents and purposes, is a self-contained space-faring city. Who knows. It's pure speculation at this point. But, any such future needs a first step. Even if that is a first step to discovering that it'll never be feasible.
Like many baby boomers I was raised on the tantalising prospect of travel to the stars. But now I try to see this through the eyes of the next generation. What was different back in the 1960s was firstly that people believed in exponential population growth, something now shown to be wrong, and secondly, that there were no integrated circuits, so virtually no IT. Now that we have highly capable IT-driven systems, we can explore the solar system far more cheaply and effectively and with far less risk by the use of automated probes and remote sensing. So it seems to me the rationale for sending human beings on these difficult, costly and risky voyages has rather collapsed. I don't think the prospect inspires my son's generation in the way it inspired mine. They are worried about getting the Earth's climate under control.

It seems to me the real motive for sending people back to the Moon, or to Mars, when one strips away all the bullshit, is that it is just like climbing Everest: achieving something difficult just for the hell of it, even though in itself it is a pointless goal. That is a traditional thing for human beings to do, so I don't dismiss it entirely, but I don't think we should kid ourselves about the motives.
In many ways I don't disagree. I think the "struggle" to achieve something is its own goal in many respects, and many benefits will arise from it (probably? possibly?). But where I think it differs to the likes of climbing Everest is that we pretty much knew with Everest that, other than the view there was not much else (other than the achievement itself). With space-travel, there may well be things out there that can offer benefits to manking as a whole (resources, capabilities, etc?). Yes, maybe robotic exploitation rather than manned would be the way to go, but a man with a shovel is currently far more capable than a robot. :)

And, besides, until we become a true space-faring species, no other alien race will be interested enough to take note and introduce us to the Federation of Planets!! ;)
 
I’ve just come across this by Martin Rees (Astronomer Royal) and someone called Donald Goldsmith, saying much the same thing as I have been.

 
And, besides, until we become a true space-faring species, no other alien race will be interested enough to take note and introduce us to the Federation of Planets!!
Once we get an ansible working, interspecies Zoom sessions will be easy. Nobody messes with generation ships anymore. The future ain't what it used to be!

an ultra-expensive sport
Yes. And given the situation in the Gulf and rocket fuel hydrogen mainly coming from steam reformation of methane, it might get more ultra-exp for a while.

And I'm starting to feel like a ruffian barging in and trashing the sweet technodreams of the Artemis II thread.
 
Last edited:
The dreams are a bit thin on the ground. I probably will not start an Artemis 3 thread, maybe 4 when they land again.
When they start testing the landing module it would be worth a thread I think. That’s a lot more complicated and interesting than a bog standard rocket job.
 
Back
Top