Artemis 2

Pinball1970 said:
You dash beastly spoil sports, this is epic and a huge land mark!
Click to expand...
It certainly was in 1969. But now it's no more a land mark than Apollo 17, probably less so, other than to show that NASA can actually do something again after 50 years. SpaceX have stolen the show with regard landmarks, being a private company revolutionising the space industry.
Pinball1970 said:
We can find out a huge amount from the moon in terms of the formation of the earth, the moon and our solar system, that's for starters.
Much more sophisticated kit to isolate and identify abiogenesis seeds on pristine samples on the moon too.
A science lab on the moon (I would have that job) access to space with no atmosphere getting in the way.
Stepping stone, at some point our descendants will have to leave this planet and develop technology to deal with deep space, this is the first step.
Click to expand...
Sure. All good stuff. But, well, all a bit... meh. ;)
I admit that all good things start with a first step, and there will be good things ahead, momentous things. But at the moment... it's retread. Nothing new. Wake me up when the good stuff starts. :D
A more permanent lunar base will be good, at least for my sci-fi cravings. (Anyone ever seen "Moonbase 3" series... very BBC - 1973) There will be benefits to have decent telescopes up there on the dark-side, for example, that people can actually fix on-site. So, sure, a first step. But land mark? Epic?
Pinball1970 said:
Why did Apollo stop? Public opinion? Cancer? Starving Africans? Vietnam?
Public opinion probably would have said the LHC was a waste, 7 billion dollars?
Click to expand...
7 billion? What's that? 4-5 days of a war with Iran? Puts things into perspective, perhaps? :)
Pinball1970 said:
CERN gave us the internet, particle accelerators (also a waste) gave us PET, CAT and MRI, actually we call it NMR but the public get squeamish about "nuclear."
Fuck em!
Click to expand...
Point of correction, CERN did not "give us the internet". It did have a hand in the creation of the "world wide web", which is how most of us experience the internet. But the internet was long before (c.20 years) CERN.
Plus, I don't think CERN was a waste at all. So there's that. :)
 
$7 billion in 70's dollars is about $60 billion today. Cern? Meh. ITER? Meh, meh...:)
Keep in mind in 1970 the debt to GDP ratio was about 35% rather than the 120% of today so they didn't just keep printing money.
 
exchemist said:
Does the engine have to fire 3 times, once to set them on their way, once to slow down enough to be captured by the moon and a third time to escape the moon and return to Earth? I seem to remember this was one of the points causing anxiety in the Apollo missions.
Click to expand...
Half through thread so this may be redundant... IIRC the tricky part is the "skip" reentry where they return to Earth then dip down into the atmosphere and then out again and then back in, each time dropping their orbital delta v - and this also helps spread out the fierce ablation heat with little cool off breaks as they skip out and in.

Not that I was ever a fan of the space program or spent a decade of childhood wanting to be an astronaut or anything....;-)
 
Pinball1970 said:
25,000 mph. Not the issue Columbia had as the Orbiter is positioned higher on Artemis, so hopefully no debris has compromised the structure.
Mach 32 still a risk though.
Click to expand...
That’s the same speed as the Apollo command module, curiously. I’d expected Artemis to be going a bit faster in view of coming back via slingshot rather than simply leaving lunar orbit. Getting the re-entry angle was critical I remember, to avoid either burning up* or bouncing off.

* In fact that gave rise to some gallows humour in Shell, for people returning from an overseas assignment, a process known to the Human Remains dept as “re-entry”. There was a chance you might come back and find there was no job for you back home. This was known, inevitably, as “burning up on re-entry”. I was lucky enough to manage 3 re-entries without “burning up”, but I had some colleagues who were less fortunate.
 
Sarkus said:
Sure. All good stuff. But, well, all a bit... meh. ;)
I admit that all good things start with a first step, and there will be good things ahead, momentous things. But at the moment... it's retread. Nothing new. Wake me up when the good stuff starts. :D
A more permanent lunar base will be good, at least for my sci-fi cravings. (Anyone ever seen "Moonbase 3" series... very BBC - 1973) There will be benefits to have decent telescopes up there on the dark-side, for example, that people can actually fix on-site. So, sure, a first step. But land mark? Epic?
Click to expand...
At this point, nearly 60 years after Apollo started and some of us were, as impressionable younguns, fed visions of moonbases and interplanetary vacations by the early 21st century, the actual space program can sometimes feel a bit anticlimactic. Ad astra per aspera!
 
TheVat said:
Half through thread so this may be redundant... IIRC the tricky part is the "skip" reentry where they return to Earth then dip down into the atmosphere and then out again and then back in, each time dropping their orbital delta v - and this also helps spread out the fierce ablation heat with little cool off breaks as they skip out and in.

Not that I was ever a fan of the space program or spent a decade of childhood wanting to be an astronaut or anything....;-)
Click to expand...
Having just written post 25, I have to admit when I saw your "skip re-entry" my first thought was this:
1775140556884.png


Let's hope not.
 
TheVat said:
At this point, nearly 60 years after Apollo started and some of us were, as impressionable younguns, fed visions of moonbases and interplanetary vacations by the early 21st century
Click to expand...
Every time I got excited about a scientific discovery/landmark mum would always say, "Ok love but what's that going to do?"
Jesus Christ mother where is your sense of wonder, adventure, vision!?

1969 she had a difficult six year old and an extremely inquisitive 2 1/2 year old to raise. Jobs, bills and food did not compete with Science or anything else and she never lost that.

NASA is not for my mum and it should never be.
 
exchemist said:
Must admit I haven’t been following this. What are they doing, going round the moon and coming back, like Apollo 8?

If so, re-entry will be hairy bit, presumably.
Click to expand...
Eh, similar trajectory to Apollo 13. They've done this before.
 
exchemist said:
Someone fathered in 1969 is now 57.
Click to expand...
They didn't need to be fathered in 1969, tho. Apollo 13 was 1970, and they could have become a father after their return. Lovell was the oldest at launch, and only 42. Haise was only 36.

Also, the age of the crew of Artemis isn't far off (currently all 47-50).
 
Sarkus said:
They didn't need to be fathered in 1969, tho. Apollo 13 was 1970, and they could have become a father after their return. Lovell was the oldest at launch, and only 42. Haise was only 36.

Also, the age of the crew of Artemis isn't far off (currently all 47-50).
Click to expand...
Fair enough. It's interesting though. I have always worked on a rule of thumb of about 30 years per generation, so around 3 generations per century. Perhaps that should now be longer, in western cultures at least. What would you say it should be?
 
exchemist said:
Fair enough. It's interesting though. I have always worked on a rule of thumb of about 30 years per generation, so around 3 generations per century. Perhaps that should now be longer, in western cultures at least. What would you say it should be?
Click to expand...
I recall news back in 1999 of UK's youngest grandmother... aged 26. :/.
But, anyhoo, overnight Artemis 2 has turned some rockets on and then off again, all while pointing in the right direction. So, well done them. :)
 
Sarkus said:
I recall news back in 1999 of UK's youngest grandmother... aged 26. :/.
But, anyhoo, overnight Artemis 2 has turned some rockets on and then off again, all while pointing in the right direction. So, well done them. :)
Click to expand...
But talking about populations as a whole, how many generations per century would you think would be a reasonable modern estimate?
 
exchemist said:
But talking about populations as a whole, how many generations per century would you think would be a reasonable modern estimate?
Click to expand...
In the US, per the CDC in 2020, the average age of being a mother for the first time was just over 27. This compares with 25 in 2000. So saying either father or grandfather in this instance wouldn't be outside the norm too much.
 
OK so I’m not too far off then. So 57yrs is indeed 2 generations.

Not to labour the point, but I at least find it hard to keep in mind what a long time ago the Apollo programme was!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top