The Artemis Program

[jfb]

...by far most of the money Boeing makes from the taxpayers is in defense contracts, on which Boeing still executes quite well. 

Ehhh....

I subbed for Boeing on a sliver of Future Contract Combat Systems, and it was a disaster.  Bad implementations of bad designs, poor project management, technical decisions driven by politics, etc.  We bodged together something that sort of worked most of the time if your expectations were low, and it was junked almost immediately upon delivery. 

They may execute well in other defense areas, but what I saw was pretty bad. 

[JayUtah]

That sounds like a miserable project.  Let's say Boeing executes well enough on its defense contracts to stay in business.

[Peter B]

And finally, SLS has launched!

[smartcooky]

And finally, SLS has launched!

And spectacular it was too! The rocket fairly leapt off its launch platform!

[JayUtah]

And finally, SLS has launched!

And spectacular it was too! The rocket fairly leapt off its launch platform!

[Takes a bow]

I've been doing structural and performance evaluations for variants of those boosters (including this one) on and off for 20 years. The sign out front of the building changes, but the people don't. It's been a very long and arduous journey to get to that moment. But yes, even though I know the density impulse numbers, I couldn't stifle a "Holy s--t!" when I saw the thing actually fly. When you understand just how big this vehicle is, you really do have to be impressed.

Also I may not have mentioned this, but my brother-in-law is chief engineer on LPD-26 USS John P. Murtha, the Artemis recovery vessel. There will be a giant high-five at Christmas this year.

[Obviousman]

Is there a recommended website for real-time tracking of the mission?

[Dalhousie]

I don't want to know what my blood pressure was watching the launch.  Tears in my eyes.

[Peter B]

And finally, SLS has launched!

And spectacular it was too! The rocket fairly leapt off its launch platform!

[Takes a bow]

I've been doing structural and performance evaluations for variants of those boosters (including this one) on and off for 20 years. The sign out front of the building changes, but the people don't. It's been a very long and arduous journey to get to that moment. But yes, even though I know the density impulse numbers, I couldn't stifle a "Holy s--t!" when I saw the thing actually fly. When you understand just how big this vehicle is, you really do have to be impressed.

Also I may not have mentioned this, but my brother-in-law is chief engineer on LPD-26 USS John P. Murtha, the Artemis recovery vessel. There will be a giant high-five at Christmas this year.

I found this video fascinating for making a size comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su9EVeHqizY

[PDI-11]

Is there a recommended website for real-time tracking of the mission?

The Artemis Real-Time Orbit Website (https://www.nasa.gov/specials/trackartemis/) is one source. When I tried it just now, it was not working very well (Microsoft Edge) and indicated that they had lost data. (Hopefully they have not lost real contact with Orion, just the website connection.)

Recommended? I will need to play with it to see if it makes sense. This is the first time I have seen where you click the +magnifier to zoom away from the Earth. The website feels clunky to me, but I will give it a chance.

[onebigmonkey]

The funniest part of this for me is watching the new found voice of reason in all things space research (the blunder from down under no less) defending the Artemis program on his moon hoax facebook group. I wonder at what point he'll crack.

The irony of him posting this:

"If a proven liar tells you 1+1=2, do you deny it because a liar said so or do you attempt to verify it?"

when defending his group against flat earthers is just delicious.

[smartcooky]

The funniest part of this for me is watching the new found voice of reason in all things space research (the blunder from down under no less) defending the Artemis program on his moon hoax facebook group. I wonder at what point he'll crack.

The irony of him posting this:

"If a proven liar tells you 1+1=2, do you deny it because a liar said so or do you attempt to verify it?"

when defending his group against flat earthers is just delicious.

I wonder what he'll if and when say when an Artemis moon landing happens somewhere close enough to go to an Apollo landing site for a visit. I'd leave Tranquility Base alone, but a visit to the Apollo 12 site where both the LM descent stage and the Surveyor 3 lander are, might be scientifically worthwhile to examine the effects of long-term lunar environment exposure. Jim Bridenstine hinted the possibility of an Apollo site visit back in 2020.

Apollo 11's Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment is still going strong after 50+ years 

[JayUtah]

Recommended? I will need to play with it to see if it makes sense. This is the first time I have seen where you click the +magnifier to zoom away from the Earth. The website feels clunky to me, but I will give it a chance.

I think it's clunky too. For the longest time, in Mission view, the spacecraft reticle was nowhere near the trajectory curve. And yes, the magnifier is counterintuitive. But I do like being able to rotate the view and illustrate things like orbital inclination. It's a pretty interesting mission profile, from an orbital mechanics point of view.

[bknight]

I'm glad that I stopped by this morning, to learn of the magnifier.  It may be clunky and counterintuitive but nrat once you figure it out.
The vast difference in SpaceX Starship and SLS will become painfully apparent once Starship  gets up and running.  I eagerly await the first orbital test flight. I'm not sure that the flight will be 100% successful, but they should figure that out with similar launches next year.

[bknight]

I was tinkering with finding the point at which the Moon's gravity becomes larger the Earth's.  Solving a simple quadratic is not something that I have accomplished lately (15 years or so) but I calculated if my math was correct that point is about, from memory as the calculation sheet is gone, about ~4500 Km from the Moon.  This sounded too low and that prompted me to discard the sheet.  Anyone have a better figure?

ETA: I see that at 0938 CST that the velocity has decreased to 451 mph today.

ETA1: I see that at 1106 CST the velocity has decreased to 420 mph but the distance to moon is decreasing more rapidly perhaps the number is ~44060 miles currently (70908 kph)  I might have made a decimal error ~45000 Km.

[Peter B]

I was tinkering with finding the point at which the Moon's gravity becomes larger the Earth's.  Solving a simple quadratic is not something that I have accomplished lately (15 years or so) but I calculated if my math was correct that point is about, from memory as the calculation sheet is gone, about ~4500 Km from the Moon.  This sounded too low and that prompted me to discard the sheet.  Anyone have a better figure?

Not OTTOMH. But the Apollo Flight Journal would have transcripts discussing it for the various missions.

ETA: I see that at 0938 CST that the velocity has decreased to 451 mph today.

ETA1: I see that at 1106 CST the velocity has decreased to 420 mph but the distance to moon is decreasing more rapidly perhaps the number is ~44060 miles currently (70908 kph)  I might have made a decimal error ~45000 Km.

I note that Artemis has gone beyond the Moon's orbit as well. And its encounter with the Moon is now about 15.5 hours away...I think I'll be tuning it to that.