On our way......NASA rocks
-
Enjoy XS650.com? Consider making a donation to help support the site.
XS650.com receives a small share of sales from some links on this page, but direct donations have a much greater impact on keeping this site going.
Artemis II
- Thread starter 650Skull
- Start date
Only a few glitches. Pretty smooth actually.
.............
's 's 's 's 'shttps://www.reuters.com/science/whi...ta_bluesky_link&taid=69cfe1c27699020001e2f2d6
Pretty cool interview.
New world record.... 252,000 miles from earth. Congratulation were sent up by none other than Jim Lovell, Commander, Apollo13.
Sorry but Meh.
This was cutting edge 50 years ago.
What did this flight achieve?
The estimated cost for each launch of the Space Launch System and Orion capsule, which includes Artemis II, is about $4.1 billion. Overall, the U.S. has reportedly spent around $93 billion on the entire Artemis program so far.
SpaceX has invested over $3 billion into the Starbase facility and Starship systems, with an expected expenditure of about $2 billion for Starship development in 2023 alone. Overall, the project cost is estimated to be at least $5 billion.
I get that Starship hasn't made low earth orbit yet.....
Most Artemus II animations are a copy of the NASA file that IMHO doesn't do justice to the difficulty of intersecting with the moons orbit. This one shows more of the relationships.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...File:Animation_of_Artemis_II_around_Earth.gif
I'll go hide now.
This was cutting edge 50 years ago.
What did this flight achieve?
The estimated cost for each launch of the Space Launch System and Orion capsule, which includes Artemis II, is about $4.1 billion. Overall, the U.S. has reportedly spent around $93 billion on the entire Artemis program so far.
SpaceX has invested over $3 billion into the Starbase facility and Starship systems, with an expected expenditure of about $2 billion for Starship development in 2023 alone. Overall, the project cost is estimated to be at least $5 billion.
I get that Starship hasn't made low earth orbit yet.....
Most Artemus II animations are a copy of the NASA file that IMHO doesn't do justice to the difficulty of intersecting with the moons orbit. This one shows more of the relationships.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...File:Animation_of_Artemis_II_around_Earth.gif
I'll go hide now.
Last edited:
An even better animation of all the orbits involved (ignoring how our solar system is moving in the [also moving] Milky Way galaxy)
...
...
Last edited:
1974 cobo arena detroitSorry but Meh.
This was cutting edge 50 years ago.
What did this flight achieve?
View attachment 368849
The estimated cost for each launch of the Space Launch System and Orion capsule, which includes Artemis II, is about $4.1 billion. Overall, the U.S. has reportedly spent around $93 billion on the entire Artemis program so far.
SpaceX has invested over $3 billion into the Starbase facility and Starship systems, with an expected expenditure of about $2 billion for Starship development in 2023 alone. Overall, the project cost is estimated to be at least $5 billion.
View attachment 368848
I get that Starship hasn't made low earth orbit yet.....
Most Artemus II animations a re copy of the NASA file that IMHO doesn't do justice to the difficulty of intersecting with the moons orbit. This one shows more of the relationships.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...File:Animation_of_Artemis_II_around_Earth.gif
I'll go hide now.
general admission
hot as hell, and the band was late
the crew opened up the co2 valves and cooled us all off
great show $12.50
I believe the goal is a manned colony on Mars, no? But, to quote a common English saying... "ya can't get there from 'ere, mate."
The best and brightest have determined the best way to get there is via the Moon. Having one fifth the Earths gravity, and being a hell of a lot closer... we build "space ports" on the moon. The Moon then becomes a staging base... or jumping off point for Mars travel and colonization. At least that's the plan I recall reading years ago.
So why a "Moon flyby?" Put it this way, would you take a new generation of aircraft carrier, and send the very first one off to war, straight out of drydock? Or would you do some "sea trials" first?
You can argue the need to colonize Mars, and by extension, the Moon.
You can argue the (extreme) cost of the entire program.
There's actually lots of arguments for and against the massive outlay of
What I'm suggesting is you can't argue the methodology. What did this flight achieve? The same thing any sea trial or flight test program would... proof of concept and vehicle/mission validation. A stepping stone if you will.
Last edited:
I will argue all day long.
While it is "cool" that we're sending people places, I fail to see the return on my "investment", which is more like the pillaging of my wages. All I've ever seen in return from any space program since I was a kid was/is the "we did this just because we could" factor. Not one single solitary tangible or intangible benefit.
Not saying there is no benefit other than "we put a man on the moon" or "we put a man past the moon". I'm just saying that's the equivalent of "we put a man on first base." Cool, is he going to help cure cancer or maybe develop a more pest-resistant crop? No? Then what good to society is he if he's not producing?
Maybe I'd feel differently if I could read their reports on their experiments and how those experiments (or other activities) benefited society, but I don't seem to have access to those.
Meanwhile, we're trashing this planet and killing each other over its resources, our differences, and centuries-old feuds.
While it is "cool" that we're sending people places, I fail to see the return on my "investment", which is more like the pillaging of my wages. All I've ever seen in return from any space program since I was a kid was/is the "we did this just because we could" factor. Not one single solitary tangible or intangible benefit.
Not saying there is no benefit other than "we put a man on the moon" or "we put a man past the moon". I'm just saying that's the equivalent of "we put a man on first base." Cool, is he going to help cure cancer or maybe develop a more pest-resistant crop? No? Then what good to society is he if he's not producing?
Maybe I'd feel differently if I could read their reports on their experiments and how those experiments (or other activities) benefited society, but I don't seem to have access to those.
Meanwhile, we're trashing this planet and killing each other over its resources, our differences, and centuries-old feuds.
Well, putting a man on the moon demonstrated to the entire world we could park an ICBM within 50' of it's intended target, all over the world, and it did so while touting it's "peaceful" intentions.
Putting a man on the moon also (just as with war) pushed technology ahead many times faster than it would have gone on otherwise.
https://materials.imdea.org/the-mos...tional-space-station-the-conversation-espana/
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/stati...ience-aboard-the-international-space-station/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_research_on_the_International_Space_Station
Just off the top of my head, space exploration was the main driver behind electronics miniaturization. Your mouse, keyboard, computer.... phone are all a direct result of NASA's space programs.
Last edited:
Velcro and Tang
Back in the 70's and 80's I did lots of cross country trips using state maps they gave away free at gas stations and a grease pencil for marking waypoints on my gas tank.
Nowadays I open my phone, tap the mic button and tell it to navigate to -insert destination-. My phone then draws a map, tells me the distance, time required, and ETA.... all thanks to GPS.
Speaking of miniaturization, during the First Gulf War I used a first generation GPS receiver. It was the size of a tool box and took about 15 min to find enough satellite's to navigate off of.
Thank you NASA and your various space programs.
Nowadays I open my phone, tap the mic button and tell it to navigate to -insert destination-. My phone then draws a map, tells me the distance, time required, and ETA.... all thanks to GPS.
Speaking of miniaturization, during the First Gulf War I used a first generation GPS receiver. It was the size of a tool box and took about 15 min to find enough satellite's to navigate off of.
Thank you NASA and your various space programs.
I just hope re-entry goes OK. It's not a given on this ship.
Speed of re-entry is much higher than a return from low earth orbit.
My understanding is they are changing the re-entry angle to reduce stress on the heat shield.
PS they didn't orbit the moon because doing that requires to burns one to slow down to moon orbit speed and another to come back up to a return to earth trajectory. So the furthest from the earth thing was about making for a simpler less risky mission profile, not a new frontier of exploration. More like lipstick on a pig....
I'm not against NASA, I'm all for it. I don't want a NASA that is using end of life (more like resurrected from the dead) technology. Remember the space shuttle was the next generation after Apollo. I want to see the money spent on what will be required to move forward, Here's hoping we will move past this..
Speed of re-entry is much higher than a return from low earth orbit.
My understanding is they are changing the re-entry angle to reduce stress on the heat shield.
PS they didn't orbit the moon because doing that requires to burns one to slow down to moon orbit speed and another to come back up to a return to earth trajectory. So the furthest from the earth thing was about making for a simpler less risky mission profile, not a new frontier of exploration. More like lipstick on a pig....
I'm not against NASA, I'm all for it. I don't want a NASA that is using end of life (more like resurrected from the dead) technology. Remember the space shuttle was the next generation after Apollo. I want to see the money spent on what will be required to move forward, Here's hoping we will move past this..
Just a few of the numerous things brought to society through the space program.
without getting into the unmentionables learned that we will never learn about...
View attachment 368872
View attachment 368873
without getting into the unmentionables learned that we will never learn about...
View attachment 368872
View attachment 368873
Last edited:
Post and research from Sep 23
Some interesting points. I saw a puff piece. where NASA cant make money but Musk can make a profit after 4 years and this shows the quality of the Man and Private enterprise....................Lets set out some points that changes the narrative a bit
NASA got around 26 Billion last year...............gov't funded dep't and is not set up to make a profit like private enterprise has to.
NASA cost is 0.03% of the total Gov't Budget.
10-15% of NASA's budget goes to Cal-Tech, (basically run/funded by NASA), and JPL, a Subsidiary of Cal-Tech................That's all the physics and jet propulsion needed for space travel/rockets.
(Didn't research the benifits of rocket development with links to the ministry of war)
All space associated Patents NASA registers cost around $100,000 for a world wide patent. All of these patents are free for companies who do work with them, (don't know where the line is drawn), but they state they are free to use.....................This cost is absorbed within their budget and the cost of registration, ($100,000), would be a small part of the cost to develop any associated patent..................The cost to develop, trial and refine a patent, (also the time), can take years and millions if not billions, (today.) on top of the Registration cost.
NASA was said to generate $77 billion worth of Tax's and supports private enterprise companies, and their associated distribution/generation of wealth for the $26 Billion cost to Gov't....................Indirectly it makes money, at roughly $3 for $1 Spent.
NASA has given billions to Boeing and SpaceX to create Enterprise. Last year, (22), SpaceX got $2.04 Billion, (almost 10% of NASA's total budget) to develop their space ship. Another 1.4 billion, (another, roughly, 6% of their budget), for another 5 Astronaut trips to and from the space station. 2.9 billion was payed to SpaceX in ( April 21) to develop a moon lander.
NASA is still funding Boeing to the tune of Billions. Why, maybe it is so there is some competition and a back up just in case............and not create a monopoly
Now we are onto the money/profit SpaceX is making, well the cost in time development and implementation it hasn't had to pay out because NASA has already done the work, Patented it and given the patents to them for free. Not just the cost of development but the time $ saved because years of work does not need to be done. ..................The launch pad readiness was questioned long before launch and it was well discussed by experts the pad wouldn't stand up to the rocket engines. Steel plate and using water to help generate thrust. ..........................Was the failure of the launch pad a cost cutting exercise by SpaceX?? because the technology is there for them to use
Going off the video SpaceX made a 55 million profit last year.
They have received at least 6 Billion in the last 3 years from NASA alone without the free patents or cost of time or cost of developing.. In 2021 private investors poured $14.5 billion into space companies. No idea how much SpaceX got but, they would have received a good part of it
Star-link revenue was 1.4 billion in 22 but he needs Star-liner to be operational to be able to finish putting up the satellites or it will take years to finish and will not make any money due to cost/time of how many launch's it would take to finish the satellites placement, and not being able to finish. Star-liner is partly funded by NASA, Starliner is integral to the star-link program.
Trying to compare, a private company, (who receive the largest portion of NASA' budget payed to contractors, more than Caltech), to a Gov't funded agency that s not designed to make money, (but indirectly it generates $3 for every $1 in funding), but funds a University, public and private enterprises and has/is paving the way for pace exploration and Mars with the rovers, voyagers, (50 years ongoing), Hubble, Asteroid probes, ect,ect, is a non argument.
And it is all done on 0.03% of congress's budget...............0.03%. Don't know about any of you guys but to me that is exceptional value for cost. Even better when it is making 3 times the amount of money spent........................Elon also has the advantage where he can offset losses against profits at Tax time where all those losse's are ultimately payed for by all the other tax payers................all a part of a private/public business structure.............NASA does not have that luxury. Also cannot compare NASA to SpaceX because a lot of their funding is spent with other companies other than SpaceX, Boeing, Russians, European Space-agency, Cal-tech, (JAs), and all of those other smaller companies integral to the pace program, which is all designed for the development of many and the US Gov't.
Some interesting points. I saw a puff piece. where NASA cant make money but Musk can make a profit after 4 years and this shows the quality of the Man and Private enterprise....................Lets set out some points that changes the narrative a bit
NASA got around 26 Billion last year...............gov't funded dep't and is not set up to make a profit like private enterprise has to.
NASA cost is 0.03% of the total Gov't Budget.
10-15% of NASA's budget goes to Cal-Tech, (basically run/funded by NASA), and JPL, a Subsidiary of Cal-Tech................That's all the physics and jet propulsion needed for space travel/rockets.
(Didn't research the benifits of rocket development with links to the ministry of war)
All space associated Patents NASA registers cost around $100,000 for a world wide patent. All of these patents are free for companies who do work with them, (don't know where the line is drawn), but they state they are free to use.....................This cost is absorbed within their budget and the cost of registration, ($100,000), would be a small part of the cost to develop any associated patent..................The cost to develop, trial and refine a patent, (also the time), can take years and millions if not billions, (today.) on top of the Registration cost.
NASA was said to generate $77 billion worth of Tax's and supports private enterprise companies, and their associated distribution/generation of wealth for the $26 Billion cost to Gov't....................Indirectly it makes money, at roughly $3 for $1 Spent.
NASA has given billions to Boeing and SpaceX to create Enterprise. Last year, (22), SpaceX got $2.04 Billion, (almost 10% of NASA's total budget) to develop their space ship. Another 1.4 billion, (another, roughly, 6% of their budget), for another 5 Astronaut trips to and from the space station. 2.9 billion was payed to SpaceX in ( April 21) to develop a moon lander.
NASA is still funding Boeing to the tune of Billions. Why, maybe it is so there is some competition and a back up just in case............and not create a monopoly
Now we are onto the money/profit SpaceX is making, well the cost in time development and implementation it hasn't had to pay out because NASA has already done the work, Patented it and given the patents to them for free. Not just the cost of development but the time $ saved because years of work does not need to be done. ..................The launch pad readiness was questioned long before launch and it was well discussed by experts the pad wouldn't stand up to the rocket engines. Steel plate and using water to help generate thrust. ..........................Was the failure of the launch pad a cost cutting exercise by SpaceX?? because the technology is there for them to use
Going off the video SpaceX made a 55 million profit last year.
They have received at least 6 Billion in the last 3 years from NASA alone without the free patents or cost of time or cost of developing.. In 2021 private investors poured $14.5 billion into space companies. No idea how much SpaceX got but, they would have received a good part of it
Star-link revenue was 1.4 billion in 22 but he needs Star-liner to be operational to be able to finish putting up the satellites or it will take years to finish and will not make any money due to cost/time of how many launch's it would take to finish the satellites placement, and not being able to finish. Star-liner is partly funded by NASA, Starliner is integral to the star-link program.
Trying to compare, a private company, (who receive the largest portion of NASA' budget payed to contractors, more than Caltech), to a Gov't funded agency that s not designed to make money, (but indirectly it generates $3 for every $1 in funding), but funds a University, public and private enterprises and has/is paving the way for pace exploration and Mars with the rovers, voyagers, (50 years ongoing), Hubble, Asteroid probes, ect,ect, is a non argument.
And it is all done on 0.03% of congress's budget...............0.03%. Don't know about any of you guys but to me that is exceptional value for cost. Even better when it is making 3 times the amount of money spent........................Elon also has the advantage where he can offset losses against profits at Tax time where all those losse's are ultimately payed for by all the other tax payers................all a part of a private/public business structure.............NASA does not have that luxury. Also cannot compare NASA to SpaceX because a lot of their funding is spent with other companies other than SpaceX, Boeing, Russians, European Space-agency, Cal-tech, (JAs), and all of those other smaller companies integral to the pace program, which is all designed for the development of many and the US Gov't.
Sorry but Meh.
This was cutting edge 50 years ago.
What did this flight achieve?
View attachment 368849
The estimated cost for each launch of the Space Launch System and Orion capsule, which includes Artemis II, is about $4.1 billion. Overall, the U.S. has reportedly spent around $93 billion on the entire Artemis program so far.
SpaceX has invested over $3 billion into the Starbase facility and Starship systems, with an expected expenditure of about $2 billion for Starship development in 2023 alone. Overall, the project cost is estimated to be at least $5 billion.
View attachment 368848
I get that Starship hasn't made low earth orbit yet.....
Most Artemus II animations a re copy of the NASA file that IMHO doesn't do justice to the difficulty of intersecting with the moons orbit. This one shows more of the relationships.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...File:Animation_of_Artemis_II_around_Earth.gif
I'll go hide now.
I think you forgot this point.
NASA was said to generate $77 billion worth of Tax's and supports private enterprise companies, and their associated distribution/generation of wealth for the $26 Billion cost to Gov't....................Indirectly it makes money, at roughly $3 for $1 Spent.
Did a bit of a dive a while back.
NASA, Indirectly makes $3 for every $1 it receives in govt funding.
NASA was said to generate $77 billion worth of Tax's and supports private enterprise companies, and their associated distribution/generation of wealth for the $26 Billion cost to Gov't....................Indirectly it makes money, at roughly $3 for $1 Spent.
That's a good point actually. NASA, for the most part, doesn't build space vehicles. The making is contracted out. So yeah, most of NASA's budget gets pumped back into the economy.
