Artemis - the NASA mission

Perhaps the NASA 1/144 model of the Space Launch System will become a collectable. Costing $400, it is currently out of stock.

https://www.shopnasa.com/products/space-launch-system-model-1-144

If your kids/grandkids/great-grandkids are 7+ then why not arrange for Santa to bring them the Lego kit. It's educational! :santa2:

1668800325104.png
 
Last edited:
Artemis, twin sister of Apollo.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
 

Attachments

  • Diana_of_Versailles.jpg
    Diana_of_Versailles.jpg
    354.1 KB · Views: 92
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: steve jones
Seven separate craft? Again...Um, no. The Saturn V launch vehicle consisted of three stages. The Apollo command and service module was one of the manned vehicles, and the other was the Lunar Module which consisted of a descent stage and a return to orbit upper stage, but both are officially just two spacecraft. So...Three stage rocket used to send two manned spacecraft to the moon. Apollo 15 thru 17 also carried a moon buggy, so for those missions one could argue that the Saturn V lofted three manned vehicles to the moon.

Mike
 
there are afaik British and American pounds as well, all of the three pounds are different.
We are not rating Roman rockets, or lifting gems and precious metals.

England had many pounds but by the time of the Metric System they had been burned, lost, or abandoned except for the two. And the jeweler's pound was abolished (the ounce remains but only in that trade, and now only for historical reference). England-derived cultures took copies of the English measures. Later all deferred to the French gram because the metrology was newer and better (the King's copy-lumps differed about one part in a million). By 1959 we were all on 2.2 pounds in a kilogram exact.

Yes, pound is weight and thrust is force. We can't relate these without knowing a gravity. As present there is only one gravity of interest (our earth surface, +/- mapped deviations).

A loaded Boeing 737 (one of the most popular jetliners) is 100,000-200,000 pounds on the tarmac. Taking the 200Klb model, if you can lift 40 of these then you have 8 million pounds thrust.

And a hectare of salt. Fuel is a third the weight of a 737, the majority of the weight of a rocket. In some sense, you get a tiny or very tiny fraction of the thrust to propel your probe or capsule or Tesla.
 
Lot of off-topic and nit-picking meanderings here, IMO.

The subject is the terrifically exciting Artemis-1 testing mission to the Moon. Latest telemetry and vector data:

Spaceship Orion near Moon.png


Check for yourself:

https://www.nasa.gov/specials/trackartemis/

We should soon have high quality images from the Moon. I hope the natives aren't as hostile as in the splendid B-movie "Amazon Women from the Moon" entertainment.

Amazon Women on the Moon 3.png


Surely trees don't grow on the arid Moon. Very hardy Space-Cacti, just maybe.

Can't wait! 😀
 
Last edited:
Surely Saturn V was a three stage rocket with the instrument unit atop the 3rd stage as the top ending. At most the conical LM fairing could be added as part of the rocket. The Apollo crew capsule plus the service module and tge lunar module commonly were defined as the payload.

Btw, does anyone else own this nice little book 😉 :

20221119_122526_res.jpg


Best regards!
 
Apparently the Artemis mission with the SLS rocket uses a lot of technologies developed by Wernher Von Braun for the Saturn V especially on fuel.

After the war, the cousins were keen to recruit him. 🙁

He, of course, developed the irritating WW2 weapon, the V-2 Rocket. Considered the beginning of the Space age:

V-2 Rocket Imperial Science Museum London.png


I can't tell you what this sinister looking thing is, or what they have to do with rockets, for fear of frightening the children:

Mk 28 Thermonuclear Bomb Caen Memorial Museum.png


Naturally I have been to see them. Always interesting for a Physicist, though I really dislike that line of work.
 
"NASA" is an acronym, not a verb...it previously was called NACA .... so in your vast knowledge of Etymology, just what did NACA "actually mean"?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: system7
Here's a few brilliant 5 minute videos I dug up from the NASA website:

https://www.nasa.gov/content/ultra-high-definition-video-gallery

A very good explanation of what this Artemis project is about. It is the start of even more ambitious projects like Mars. The Landers are sent up separately. It involves the Gateway Lunar Space station yet to be constructed:


Images from a satellite orbiter showing what Apollo 13 saw out of their windows of The Moon. Lots of dark grey rock and craters:


And what The Moon looks like from Earth in time lapse, it sort of wobbles:


A promotion video from NASA which is quite exciting, even if the dates have been put back to the end of the decade now.

WE ARE GOING TO THE MOON!

And I picked up that the Space Station is in an elliptical orbit, energetically at midpoint Earth and Lunar gravitation that saves fuel in a clever way :


It's all like watching an episode of Star Trek Enterprise! 😊
 
Last edited:
Good point. If you think about what is required to get a small lander or orbiter up there, it's a monstrosity.
It really shows how primitive our 'space vehicles' really are.
Like the primitive cars that burned a gallon of gas to just move a mile. Unsustainable in the longer run, just as those giant rockets are, in the longer run, unsustainable.
Time for innovation!

Jan
Come the (cable) space elevator...

//