OT: - Artemis I Tomorrow | Page 2 | The Boneyard

OT: Artemis I Tomorrow

Palatine said:
Actually they have about 10 mini-satellites they will drop off at the moon or continue on to other destinations. Those will measure ration, check for water head out for an asteroid, etc. More details below.

Artemis I: About the CubeSat Payload

When Orion blasts off for the first Artemis mission next year, so too will several CubeSats in an effort to learn more about deep space.
spacecenter.org spacecenter.org
Expand ...


I was being sarcastic but this is interesting thanks!
 
Next launch date is now Saturday at 2:17PM. Earlier in the week only Friday and Monday were announced as possible dates if Monday’s launch was scrubbed.
 
Artemis was supposed to launch today at 2:17PM after scrub on Monday. Today's launch is now scrubbed due to another leak. During tanking of the Artemis I, a leak developed in the supply side of the 8-inch quick disconnect while attempting to transfer fuel to the rocket. It could be a while before they decide to launch again. Now, I can focus on the game against CCSU.
 
NASA doesn’t want this thing, doesn’t need this thing and definitely should not be shackled to all of its failures.

When it launches, it will take billions of dollars and millions of man hours into space that should have been used on something functional.
 
Palatine said:
Actually they have about 10 mini-satellites they will drop off at the moon or continue on to other destinations. Those will measure ration, check for water head out for an asteroid, etc. More details below.

Artemis I: About the CubeSat Payload

When Orion blasts off for the first Artemis mission next year, so too will several CubeSats in an effort to learn more about deep space.
spacecenter.org spacecenter.org
Expand ...

  1. BioSentinel​

    "Then, there's BioSentinel, developed by NASA's Ames Research Center. This CubeSat is out to study how living organisms are affected by deep-space radiation. This 18-month mission, which utilizes yeast to assess the effects of deep-space radiation, marks the first time in over 40 years that living organisms have been sent to deep space. The findings of this experiment will ultimately serve to protect humans on future exploration missions."

So a long time from now, far, far away, some alien civilization will discover a shoe box full of yeast, and wonder how such seemingly dumb organisms could figure out how to make a spacecraft.
 
I wonder if I could see it if I walked out to the beach. The launch would be almost 200 miles north of me.
 
HCCForever said:
Artemis was supposed to launch today at 2:17PM after scrub on Monday. Today's launch is now scrubbed due to another leak. During tanking of the Artemis I, a leak developed in the supply side of the 8-inch quick disconnect while attempting to transfer fuel to the rocket. It could be a while before they decide to launch again. Now, I can focus on the game against CCSU.
Expand ...
D70C6C41-0A12-490D-BDAB-4D959BC0A384.jpeg


You’re welcome NASA.
 
Fishy said:
NASA doesn’t want this thing, doesn’t need this thing and definitely should not be shackled to all of its failures.

When it launches, it will take billions of dollars and millions of man hours into space that should have been used on something functional.
Expand ...
Like running water in capital cities.
 
Watch the trajectory of the rocket itself. If magnification is possessed - watch it. It always goes out to sea (east) - never straight up. It’s not the spinning of the earth - as some claim.
 
Fishy said:
When it launches, it will take billions of dollars and millions of man hours into space that should have been used on something functional.
Expand ...

I feel like that criticism is better aimed at the space shuttle program which seemed like an excuse to keep the agency open and never lived up to its claims in terms of number of launches of cost effectiveness.
 
Designed by politicians and lobbyists using decades old technology from the space shuttle. Read up on it. The funding bill restricted what could be used in development. Years late and still using liquid hydrogen which has always been a crap shoot. SPACEX uses kerosene. I wish them luck anyway, but ARTEMIS should not be the future.
 
CL82 said:
I feel like that criticism is better aimed at the space shuttle program which seemed like an excuse to keep the agency open and never lived up to its claims in terms of number of launches of cost effectiveness.
Expand ...

This makes the space shuttle look like a commuter train.

This is a ludicrous program that ends nowhere.
 
Fishy said:
This makes the space shuttle look like a commuter train.

This is a ludicrous program that ends nowhere.
Expand ...
That was it’s problem. It was trying to be a commuter train. But it was also trying to be a cargo van. It’s promised efficiency never materialized. When you try to build some thing that does a little bit of everything, it typically does nothing particularly well.
 
CL82 said:
That was it’s problem. It was trying to be a commuter train. But it was also trying to be a cargo van. It’s promised efficiency never materialized. When you try to build some thing that does a little bit of everything, it typically does nothing particularly well.
Expand ...

The space shuttle is dead and buried, so not sure why you’re on about it.
 
Fishy said:
The space shuttle is dead and buried, so not sure why you’re on about it.
Expand ...
Because it’s a reasonable comparison point to the new program we’re starting. It’s easy to say “well golly, that’s a lot of money“. It undoubtedly is, but 11 years ago we were running a program that cost $1.5 billion per mission just to get in the low earth orbit.

Getting back to the moon, using its resources is the next logical step up and in the space program. It was never inexpensive. It is not going to be more either.
 
Kitaman said:
Can successfully send a rocket to the moon (and beyond), but can't won't make a car to last 9 months without needing some type of repair or fix.

End of rant

By the way 60k lbs, what the hell are they planning on building up there?
Expand ...
According to Don Petit (nasa) - we destroyed the technology to do that (go to the moon) and it’s a painful process to build it back. SMH
 
The funding for this should have gone to Space-X or Blue Origin which both would have completed successfully at a fraction of the cost. This just further cements that NASA is as good as dead. This is exactly like the F35 joint strike fighter…all politics and you get garbage at the end.
 
Hurleyman216 said:
The funding for this should have gone to Space-X or Blue Origin which both would have completed successfully at a fraction of the cost. This just further cements that NASA is as good as dead. This is exactly like the F35 joint strike fighter…all politics and you get garbage at the end.
Expand ...
I understand the sentiment but would congress simply provide funds to Space-X or Blue Origin without constraining them with pork belly politics as they do with NASA? I have major doubts.
 

Online statistics

Members online
299
Guests online
2,961
Total visitors
3,260
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
164,519
Messages
4,399,775
Members
10,213
Latest member
Jab


.
..
Top Bottom