so, Artemis test flight AKA Should Launch Someday, 16-Nov-2022

[Andy ES]

I remember watching the first ever planned space shuttle launch which went the same way unfortunately.😬

[Alan White]

29 minutes ago, Andy ES said:

I remember watching the first ever planned space shuttle launch which went the same way unfortunately.😬

You are watching a Space Shuttle launch, just more engines and no Shuttle!

[Andy ES]

1 hour ago, Alan White said:

1 hour ago, Andy ES said:

I remember watching the first ever planned space shuttle launch which went the same way unfortunately.😬

You are watching a Space Shuttle launch, just more engines and no Shuttle!

Still doesn’t work though after 41 years! 😂

[Nik271]

Well, these are what they call re-usable engines. Re used after  a decade... Probably ignored the best before sticker on it... 😀

Edited August 29, 2022 by Nik271

[maw lod qan]

I'll let Boeing get the bugs worked out.

Love to see it live, but I'll watch TV next time.

About 360 miles round trip of 75 to 80 mph even when I shouldn't. 

Didn't bother me when I was younger. I'm beat and about to make a crash landing on my couch!

[DaveL59]

11 minutes ago, maw lod qan said:

I'll let Boeing get the bugs worked out.

Love to see it live, but I'll watch TV next time.

About 360 miles round trip of 75 to 80 mph even when I shouldn't. 

Didn't bother me when I was younger. I'm beat and about to make a crash landing on my couch!

wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot less of a crowd next time, a long return trip to make for a no fly disappointment...

[Zermelo]

2 hours ago, Alan White said:

You are watching a Space Shuttle launch, just more engines and no Shuttle!

I heard a scientist on the radio earlier saying that you have to expect teething troubles with such new technology, which hasn't been fully tested yet

Edited August 29, 2022 by Zermelo

[Zeta Reticulan]

 

[DaveL59]

if it does get away, the interesting bit will be the reentry:

Quote

The current mission's chief objective actually comes right at the end of the 42-day flight.

Engineers are most concerned to see that Orion's heatshield will cope with the extreme temperatures it will encounter on re-entry to Earth's atmosphere.

Orion will be coming in very fast - at 38,000km/h (24,000mph), or 32 times the speed of sound.

"Even the reinforced carbon-carbon that protected the shuttle was only good for around 3,000F (1,600C)," said Mike Hawes, the Orion programme manager at aerospace manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

"Now, we're coming in at more than 4,000F (2,200C). We've gone back to the Apollo ablative material called Avcoat. It's in blocks with a gap filler, and testing that is a high priority."

wonder if they'll play that classic line by Kenneth Williams in the carry-on flick for the over-temp alarm:

"frying tonight!" 😉 

Edited August 29, 2022 by DaveL59

[Alan White]

Did Boeing build the shuttle?

 

[Stu]

Although SLS reuses old shuttle rockets and boosters, there must be a huge amount of much more modern technology on it as the systems will all have been updated from what was probably 1970s tech on the shuttle.

Although SpaceX are demonstrating a very different and, on the face of it, much more successful approach, the difference in organisation type shouldn’t be under estimated. SpaceX is effectively a startup, and has crashed a load of rockets getting to where they are (funded by huge state contract monies let’s not forget). NASA is long established, and simply would not get away with crashing multiple SLS rockets to make rapid progress, so they are bound by a much more conservative method of working. That’s not to say there aren’t huge issues of management and project management that could be improved.

Let’s also not forget that all the Starship has actually done is fly up to about 10 miles and come back down to a successful landing once (or one and a half times??). It has not completed one orbit of the earth, or a re-entry from orbital speeds. I’m fully expecting a dramatic failure or two before they succeed. The chopstick system looks ingenious, but again it has to be likely that they will blow up that tower a few times before succeeding.

It’s very easy to sit in our armchairs being critical, I am still in awe of what they are aiming to do and hope that it goes successfully. I know that I couldn’t launch something as tall as the Statue of Liberty and send a capsule around the moon, so shall keep my trap shut and hope for the best.

SLS may be old hat and I’m not quite clear what SpaceX intentions are relating to the Moon, but I wouldn’t bet against NASA getting there first with Artemis. It’s a bit of a tortoise and hare scenario really. We shall see.

[Zeta Reticulan]

I'm wondering what the motive is to launch now. I would have thought all of the bugs would have been ironed out before a launch is even considered. Things don't go well for NASA when political decisions override technical decisions.  

[Alan White]

I hear what you say Stu and agree, much of my comments are light hearted banter and I am very excited to be living through manned Moon shots for a second time in my life.

But they have raided the parts bin for SLS and then ‘fixed’ issues to pull a very big project together, if that’s a good or bad move, we’ll time will tell.

NASA and  let’s not forget ESA are building on many of our hopes and dreams to return to The Moon.

 

[Stu]

10 minutes ago, Zeta Reticulan said:

I'm wondering what the motive is to launch now. I would have thought all of the bugs would have been ironed out before a launch is even considered. Things don't go well for NASA when political decisions override technical decisions.  

It does seem odd that some of the issues are similar to those from the previous wet rehearsal. Those should all have been fixed for launch, but it appears they haven’t.

[Zeta Reticulan]

5 minutes ago, Stu said:

It does seem odd that some of the issues are similar to those from the previous wet rehearsal. Those should all have been fixed for launch, but it appears they haven’t.

I just hope they check the O rings.

[DaveS]

TBH I'm getting more than a little depressed by the whole "Chuck-it-away" attitude. It might have been acceptable for Apollo where the aim was to get to the moon as quickly as possible with barely adequate technology, but I would have hoped that technology would have moved on.

It just isn't sustainable.

For all that I hate his Starlink garbage, Musk is at least showing us that there is another way.

I do have to wonder sometimes whether the throwaway attitude is wholly down to physics, or whether the fact that the early space program had a lot of military input, including re-purposed ICBMs (Both USA and USSR). After all when the army fires a missile they don't want it coming back. Maybe the mindset has hindered the search / development of alternatives.

[Robindonne]

On 19/08/2022 at 11:56, CraigT82 said:

As in it won't launch due to weather or some other cancellation, or it will launce but will fail?

Lol

[DaveL59]

Thing too is that since they're going to need to build a new SLS for each trip are they going to be going thru all this failure/delay again and again? 

Can't say that SpaceX's starship impresses either, they may get it to land occasionally but that shape ain't exactly stable in flight so what's the odds going to look like if they do go forward with it. A good landing 7/10 times?

[Robindonne]

I They treat is basically as a test (😉).  Their excuse is, its a test and if the test goes well why not launch it during that test. The problem today, besides the crack, was a problem that could only pop up on a day like this, an almost launch.   
 

[DaveL59]

7 hours ago, Robindonne said:

They treat is basically as a test (😉).  Their excuse is, its a test and if the test goes well why not launch it during that test. The problem today, besides the crack, was a problem that could only pop up on a day like this, an almost launch.   
 

Friday…..after Max set the fastest laps in fp1 and fp2

Well is disappointing when they hit the same issue before and then again on the big launch-1 day but yeah is an iterative process, should be flying by take-6 or so 🙂 

[maw lod qan]

So, I've recovered and downloaded a couple images. 

Worried about shooting a video, I didn't image much.

Does a Venus Artemis conjunction count?

Why are they burning off hydrogen?

Believe me, it was worth it for the sights, and the circus!

I forgot to add. The widefield was my Canon T7 with 55mm.

The close ups the T7 with 1000mm cheap lens.

Edited August 29, 2022 by maw lod qan

[Sunshine]

3 hours ago, Zeta Reticulan said:

I just hope they check the O rings.

Indeed, I heard it was the same team who inspected the Hubble mirror prior to launch.

[Zeta Reticulan]

 

They had better and more reliable ships in the 60's.

[Zeta Reticulan]

2 minutes ago, Sunshine said:

Indeed, I heard it was the same team who inspected the Hubble mirror prior to launch.

The technicians knew about the O-rings. The Challenger disaster could have been avoided. 

[Sunshine]

44 minutes ago, Zeta Reticulan said:

The technicians knew about the O-rings. The Challenger disaster could have been avoided. 

Yes, blowby of the O rings had occurred before Challenger, sad that it was swept under the carpet.