Jump to content

Artemis Discussion Thread


Nightside
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/27/2022 at 4:09 PM, tater said:

 

When has SLS/Artimis *not* been open ended?  And won't Boeing have to design a "new" SLS, then build it for Artimis 3?  That sounds more like a decade at Boeing's pace than a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, wumpus said:

When has SLS/Artimis *not* been open ended?  And won't Boeing have to design a "new" SLS, then build it for Artimis 3?  That sounds more like a decade at Boeing's pace than a year.

I think they're trying to create program momentum.

The next several years for Artemis are a mess, honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Artemis-1 will be crewed after all, by several colonies of yeast and algae. Their mission is to be exposed to cosmic rays and then studied back on the ground, to see how the different colonies fared. The experiment is provided by UBC.

https://news.ubc.ca/2022/08/23/ubc-scientist-sending-yeast-algae-nasa-spacecraft-artemis-1/

Edited by StrandedonEarth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kerwood Floyd said:

Scrub

An "engine issue they could not resolve".

You know, it seems unfair to Amundsen that his crater is only near the South Pole, but Shackleton gets one right on the South Pole. I don't think Shackleton even ever actually did get to the South Pole on Earth, although he had some epic adventures trying to get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

You know, it seems unfair to Amundsen that his crater is only near the South Pole, but Shackleton gets one right on the South Pole. I don't think Shackleton even ever actually did get to the South Pole on Earth, although he had some epic adventures trying to get there.

At least the one on the south pole isn't Scott crater. For a while after the race to the pole, it seems to have been a common British narrative that Scott was its moral victor, having done everything the proper and gentlemanly way; that mere flukes were the reason why that honourless barbarian Amundsen arrived first; and that the death of Scott and his entire party on the return journey were merely insignificant details in the glorious triumph. 

It seems that somebody thought Shackleton was a more fitting hero to be memorialized through the polar crater on the Moon, since he at least returned from the Antarctic. Still, it feels kinda cheap that the honour didn't go to Amundsen, who actually went to the South Pole.

Oh, and fun fact: Amundsen was also the first person to properly document a visit to the North Pole. The two other claimants to the title did a rather poor job of proving they had actually been there. Amundsen arrived there by airship, though, after a single day's breezy flight from Svalbard, so his achievement in that regard was a bit overshadowed by previous expeditions who went there the hard way.

 

Edited by Codraroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

An "engine issue they could not resolve".

You know, it seems unfair to Amundsen that his crater is only near the South Pole, but Shackleton gets one right on the South Pole. I don't think Shackleton even ever actually did get to the South Pole on Earth, although he had some epic adventures trying to get there.

As the saying goes:

"Aim for the South Pole, even if you miss you'll end up on the moon."

- Jebidiah Kerman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I wonder what will happen to the Krispy Kreme Artemis doughnut.

Go on sale again on the next attempt, continue selling all week, or call the enterprise off?

Unsure. The nearest Krispy Kreme to MCC is about 18 miles, my buddy wanted to get some for his team, but that’s sorta far in Houston with traffic I guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Next launch attempt is Saturday, but they are forecasting it may be scrubbed again due to expected weather.

Read a 60% go report earlier for Saturday. Hopefully they thread the needle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2022 at 6:16 PM, Codraroll said:

Amundsen, who actually went to the South Pole.

Oh, and fun fact: Amundsen was also the first person to properly document a visit to the North Pole.

We can name the Earth poles after him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that launch window opens at 2:17 pm Florida time tomorrow and runs for two hours.

Also, the problem was that one engine was not reporting that it had been chilled down enough, but they suspect it might actually have been a faulty temperature sensor. However, they are going to start chilling 30 minutes earlier. And they have devised an alternate check on the temperature in case it was a bad sensor (because they can't swap the sensor without rolling back to the VAB).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Artemis scrubbed again.

This time it is because they had hydrogen leaks in their fuel-loading process. (They have had this before.)

Also, they are now sure that the engine was fine last time, that it was just a bad sensor, and that they could have launched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mikegarrison said:

Also, they are now sure that the engine was fine last time, that it was just a bad sensor, and that they could have launched.

Huh? I followed the NASA stream all afternoon, and from what I heard this scrub was before they reached the engine bleed phase. Not to mention, the fact that triggered the abort on Monday was that the engine bleed issue was coupled with more LH2 issues that had come hour shortly before; with this plus the weather becoming a no-go shortly after the scrub all but confirms they could not, in fact, have launched

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that they confirmed the engine was fine the first time, and that it was just a bad sensor. The article didn't say how they confirmed it.

I suppose it is true that other, different, problems could have stopped the earlier launch even if they had moved past the engine chill, so that was an overstatement on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

I read that they confirmed the engine was fine the first time, and that it was just a bad sensor. The article didn't say how they confirmed it.

I suppose it is true that other, different, problems could have stopped the earlier launch even if they had moved past the engine chill, so that was an overstatement on my part.

Most of the running commentary is in the SLS/Orion thread—I suppose since the launch is mostly SLS/Orion testing—but the QD leak issue I think was the big one they could not work around the first time, either. It looks like at the pad the QD arm is sort of out in the breeze, and to get over to it and work on it they might have to roll to VAB where there are safe platforms right up against the entire vehicle. Seems like a design failure of the gantry to not have gangways to reach the QD, the thing only has 3, the crew access arm, the ICPS one, and the core. You'd think it would not have been a big issue to have a walkway with rails (and places to clip harnesses in) for access. They had to do remote voodoo to try and seat it (maybe it needed to be clobbered with a rubber mallet ;)  ). (not suggesting they do that while tanking—though they did during Apollo—but in the days between attempts they might have been able to do more with safe access)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...