Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
The worse the Iran thing got, the more I wanted to enthuse about this.
Artemis 2
- Thread starter Pinball1970
- Start date
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I can tell you are secretly excited by this project, reading between the lines.
You will be wearing your I "heart" NASA T shirt tonight for splash down.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
All my life I have felt that about IT specifically. It has never interested or i pressed me for some reason. Proper technology, as developed by engineers, doctors etc., is another matter.
Artemis doesn’t do much for me since it’s a remake of what I saw half a century ago as a teenager. But I admit I will have a bit of a “Baxter”* moment when they get to re-entry.
By the way, why Artemis? The goddess of hunting and chastity? Why her?
* Tintin, Objectif Lune, the mission controller who chews the end of his tie at moments of stress. By the time they are back on the ground, his tie is just a ragged stump about 3 inches long.
I'm excited by the overall attempt and what we'll learn.
This particular mission (Apollo 8 all over again) isn't super exciting to me, but it will lead to bigger and better things. And they are landing just off the coast of San Diego!
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
She's Apollo's twin sister.
We had a cat named Artemis a while back. She loved to hunt and would go off into the wilderness (undeveloped land nearby) occasionally. She was also chaste.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Science is different.
I was aware of a few bits and pieces but Anton is a good guy and puts this summary together well.
There is sections on the time line stamp but it is always better like this.
1.16 - Trajectory
3.00 - Far side of the moon observation
3.50- Earth shine
4.25- Meteoroids
5.10- Stem cell/radiation
6.40- Archer
7.40- Immune system
8.18- laser communication
11.50- Heat shield
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Ah yes, so I see. I had not realised that. Apollo seems to have retained the same name in Roman theology, whereas Artemis became Diana.She's Apollo's twin sister.
We had a cat named Artemis a while back. She loved to hunt and would go off into the wilderness (undeveloped land nearby) occasionally. She was also chaste.
[Cynical]Those people maybe haven't yet lived, so probably get excited about a new app on a phone.
[/cynical]I think Artemis 2 is overhyped from a tech pov. I'll happily keep repeating: mankind did this almost 60 years ago! The achievement on this case is symbolic... of what is hopefully to come. It's okay to be excited about that in the same way you might get excited by your favourite rock band reforming after 20 years... the initial concerts are nostalgia, and you get hyped for that, but it's ultimately nothing new. Maybe better tech for the sound system but, really, it's just the same. Hopefully it leads to brand new, and far better, albums. But for now, you're happy to enjoy the nostalgia.
That's how I feel at the moment about the Artemis 2 mission. The moon landing will itself will be a step up, but much of that may depend on the system they use. Permanent base? That'll be good.
NASA, and science in general, tend to "go Greek" rather than Roman. So made sense to go "Artemis" than "Diana" in this case. More people would recognise Artemis as Apollo's twin than would think "Diana".
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Mercury? Gemini? Er, Shuttle?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Splash down is 1.07 am Sat GMT. If you check the heat shield issues and re-entry posts you will know this is risky.
God speed guys.
God speed guys.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Groan! Spaying seems to encourage chastity...in cats anyway.
And they're home.
NASA Artemis II live updates: Astronauts splash down after record-breaking moon mission
Follow live coverage of NASA's Artemis II mission splashdown. Get the latest news and watch as the astronauts finish their record-breaking moon mission.
www.nbcnews.com
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Shuttle was the god of weaving.Mercury? Gemini? Er, Shuttle?
No idea why Mercury program couldn't have been Hermes. For one thing, those capsules were hermetically sealed...
Exceptions prove the rule, as they say.Mercury? Gemini? Er, Shuttle?
I'm not saying they only use Greek, but i note that they tend to lean that way: Daedalus, Orion, Prometheus, Icarus etc. But you're right, of course. I imagine they use whichever name paints the most appropriate picture for the mission (theoretical or actual). So, yeah, there's no policy, no rule, that says one over the other, or even that they can't mix it up (heck, Voyager was an English word from the French, no mythology at all!). If you look at all their missions over the life of NASA there might be no leaning at all.
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
Between 1960 and 1973 the Apollo program cost ~309 billion( in today's money) Over roughly the same time period (2012-2025) Artemis cost 93 billion. It becomes a bit more striking if you compare this in terms of the entire US budget, Apollo ran around 1.25% of the budget and Artemis is at around 0.13% of the budget, almost a factor of 10 difference. The aim of Artemis is not just to repeat what Apollo did, but to do it in a more cost effective and sustainable way. Apollo proved it was possible to do it, but it wasn't practical. Artemis is trying to do it while being practical.[Cynical]Those people maybe haven't yet lived, so probably get excited about a new app on a phone.
I think Artemis 2 is overhyped from a tech pov. I'll happily keep repeating: mankind did this almost 60 years ago! The achievement on this case is symbolic... of what is hopefully to come. It's okay to be excited about that in the same way you might get excited by your favourite rock band reforming after 20 years... the initial concerts are nostalgia, and you get hyped for that, but it's ultimately nothing new. Maybe better tech for the sound system but, really, it's just the same. Hopefully it leads to brand new, and far better, albums. But for now, you're happy to enjoy the nostalgia.
That's how I feel at the moment about the Artemis 2 mission. The moon landing will itself will be a step up, but much of that may depend on the system they use. Permanent base? That'll be good.
Sure. But this is somewhat of a false narrative, isn't it? That aim ignores a huge baseline shift in technology, industry, and economics. Heck, a VHS player when it first came out was a month's wage. If someone told you now that they could give me a really good VHS player for only half a week's wage, and that you should consider this an achievement, you'd look at them as if they were a bit weird, right? We have far better tech at far lower prices. If we're ostensibly just repeating what we did 60 years ago, I'd damn well hope it was significantly cheaper. Wouldn't you?? Basically, we're not starting from scratch here. We're not reinventing everything. We've been doing major launches for the best part of 60 years.
So, no, I don't buy that economics/efficiency argument as being particularly strong.
I think if the goal was cost effectiveness and sustainability, they would have gone with an existing reusable launch vehicle (namely Falcon 9 Heavy) and done a combination EOR/LOR mission.
It's great what they have done with the SLS, but at the end of the day it's a very, very expensive expendable launch system.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
With space flight, of course the conspiracy nut jobs put on their tin foil hats and get typing.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
What that article fails to point out is the technology-driven aspect of this phenomenon. The algorithms of social media are designed to promote shocking or contentious content, because it provokes responses, and to keep people on-line as long as possible by feeding more and more of the type of content they have once chosen to view.
Thus the algorithms by design amplify the spread of misinformation.