Space Travel & Exploration

[Pann]

69Mi parking orbit per the NASA TV broadcast. Same orbits as Apollo. LLO.

You also have the ENTIRE THREAD disagreeing with your take that it takes NASA 15 launches to get to the moon.

It's really fucking rare for the thread to agree on ANYTHING

Artemis has never and will not use a LLO. The first mission utilised a distant retrograde orbit (DRO), the second will not enter orbit and will fly a free-return trajectory and Artemis 3 and onwards will use a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit.

Everyday Astronaut has an interesting post on Twitter regarding Destin's video - https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/s...02010908750135

Here is what he has to say on Orion's orbit,

"Lastly, Destin was quick to rightfully point out why Artemis is using NRHO (Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit) because Orion isn't capable of getting into Low Lunar Orbit, but he didn't dive into the even bigger problem of why Orion can't. The simple answer is SLS doesn't have the performance to send any more mass to the moon than Orion with its small, undersized service module. If NASA were to wait to develop a lunar system and Gateway until SLS Block 1B was at least flying with the Exploration Upper Stage, they could stretch the service module by 10 tonnes, so potentially nearly doubling the propellant capacity, it would be able to achieve a much lower lunar orbit. This doesn't change the size / scale / refueling requirements of the current SpaceX HLS lander at all, but it at least gets rid of the potential 6+ day rendezvous from the surface of the moon to the Orion capable which is required to get a crew home safely."

[plz delete account]

Artemis has never and will not use a LLO. The first mission utilised a distant retrograde orbit (DRO),

Nope.
Waiting for non-wikipedia sourcing

[Pann]

Nope.
Waiting for non-wikipedia sourcing

What's your problem? Why are you always so rude?

But how about NASA? https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space...around%20Earth.

https://www.nasa.gov/missions/orion-...ing-artemis-i/



The ESA - https://blogs.esa.int/orion/2022/11/...rograde-orbit/

Spaceflight Now - https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/11/2...stance-record/

https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/11/2...status-center/

Space News - https://spacenews.com/orion-enters-l...rograde-orbit/

Scott Manley



Aviation Week - https://aviationweek.com/defense-spa...trograde-orbit

I guess they're all wrong too?

[PACOX]

Artemis has never and will not use a LLO. The first mission utilised a distant retrograde orbit (DRO), the second will not enter orbit and will fly a free-return trajectory and Artemis 3 and onwards will use a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit.

Everyday Astronaut has an interesting post on Twitter regarding Destin's video - https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/s...02010908750135

Here is what he has to say on Orion's orbit,

"Lastly, Destin was quick to rightfully point out why Artemis is using NRHO (Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit) because Orion isn't capable of getting into Low Lunar Orbit, but he didn't dive into the even bigger problem of why Orion can't. The simple answer is SLS doesn't have the performance to send any more mass to the moon than Orion with its small, undersized service module. If NASA were to wait to develop a lunar system and Gateway until SLS Block 1B was at least flying with the Exploration Upper Stage, they could stretch the service module by 10 tonnes, so potentially nearly doubling the propellant capacity, it would be able to achieve a much lower lunar orbit. This doesn't change the size / scale / refueling requirements of the current SpaceX HLS lander at all, but it at least gets rid of the potential 6+ day rendezvous from the surface of the moon to the Orion capable which is required to get a crew home safely."

NASA is trying to force Congress to fund other projects such as Gateway and Starship, hence SLS and its iterations not being fully independent. NASA's goal is to pave the way the way for the future of spaceflight even if it means it has to take L's in the realm of pop science. Starship really isn't new tech, its an interaction of the shuttles, buts its not something NASA could get funding for. SLS is just a space shuttle if you turned it into a capsule, a 30+ year old design. Gateway is something we should have had in the 80s.


Bill Nelson is trying to accelerate non-military spaceflight into a place where it should have been if policies (Reagan) didnt screw it over in the 80s. If that means using redundant designs and propping up commercial entities like SpaceX, ULA, and Blue Origin, then so be it. SpaceX is amazing, SpaceX really hasn't done anything that NASA/JPL hasn't already done but didn't have the Congressional funding to develop. Scott Manley alludes to it in his videos. One of the reasons why I hate when people try to pit NASA vs SpaceX is that they dont realize NASA off loaded a lot of its knowledge and talent onto SpaceX to get around government regulation. This isnt a X vs Y game. Its X -> Y where everyone benefits. Let Bill Nelson cook while we have him.

[bladeXcrasher]

69Mi parking orbit per the NASA TV broadcast. Same orbits as Apollo. LLO.

You also have the ENTIRE THREAD disagreeing with your take that it takes NASA 15 launches to get to the moon.

It's really fucking rare for the thread to agree on ANYTHING

It's nasa saying it takes at least 15 launches, it's not my take, it's their statement.

Orion may have gotten within 69 miles of the lunar surface at periapsis...but it was never in a LLO...you should look at the mission profile before you post again about this because you are the only person saying this.

[Pann]

A spectacular real time video of Artemis 1's re-entry.

[PACOX]

It's nasa saying it takes at least 15 launches, it's not my take, it's their statement.

Orion may have gotten within 69 miles of the lunar surface at periapsis...but it was never in a LLO...you should look at the mission profile before you post again about this because you are the only person saying this.

My guy, you just proclaimed in your post that Orion was able to reach the Moon in one launch, because it did that last year. The vehicle that will take what amount of launches, no one knows for sure yet, is Starship. Starship does not carry Orion. Starship won't even be flying people from Earth to the Moon for some time. Starships role is to meet with an Orion capsule orbiting the Moon, then act as a lander for the astronauts in the Orion capsule. When the astronauts are done, Starship will fly the astronauts back to Orion, which will take the astronauts back to Earth. Orion/SLS get to the Moon in one go, thats not up for debate, its happened already.

Starship requires orbital refueling, so it has to sit in orbit until other Starships bring fuel to it. The first couple of trips it will take to the Moon will require multiple, maybe 15, Starships to bring fuel to the one going to the Moon. Eventually that number will be 1 because there will be an orbital deport it will dock to for fuel. Further down the line there will a Starship lunar lander that lives at the Moon (most likely the Gateway space station).

[bladeXcrasher]

My guy, you just proclaimed in your post that Orion was able to reach the Moon in one launch, because it did that last year. The vehicle that will take what amount of launches, no one knows for sure yet, is Starship. Starship does not carry Orion. Starship won't even be flying people from Earth to the Moon for some time. Starships role is to meet with an Orion capsule orbiting the Moon, then act as a lander for the astronauts in the Orion capsule. When the astronauts are done, Starship will fly the astronauts back to Orion, which will take the astronauts back to Earth. Orion/SLS get to the Moon in one go, thats not up for debate, its happened already.

Starship requires orbital refueling, so it has to sit in orbit until other Starships bring fuel to it. The first couple of trips it will take to the Moon will require multiple, maybe 15, Starships to bring fuel to the one going to the Moon. Eventually that number will be 1 because there will be an orbital deport it will dock to for fuel. Further down the line there will a Starship lunar lander that lives at the Moon (most likely the Gateway space station).

I'm well aware of what the "at least 15 launches" entails...I posted the video. It has the mission profile in it and what space vehicles do what. Still doesn't change the fact that the current number is "at least 15" or that the SLS stack lacks the dV to place Orion in a LLO which the other guy keeps talking about.

[PACOX]

I'm well aware of what the "at least 15 launches" entails...I posted the video. It has the mission profile in it and what space vehicles do what. Still doesn't change the fact that the current number is "at least 15" or that the SLS stack lacks the dV to place Orion in a LLO which the other guy keeps talking about.

Yeah, it was never designed for LLO so I'm not sure what the argument or criticism is.


The capsule is meant to dock of Gateway and we have more robust landers. Landers that significantly more dV than the LEM. There's no point in reaching LLO when a DRO is fine and futureproof. You said it takes Orion 15 launches to get to the Moon, which just isn't true. No one would have said a thing if you said Starship will take 15 launches - which even then is only true until better infrastructure to support Starship is implemented.


The Artemis program is not a one trick "just get there as fast as possible" program like Apollo. It's about building and maintaining a more permanent deep space (beyond LEO) presence. It doesn't do things already achieved by Apollo because the scope of the program is much larger than Apollo's touch and go missions.

[George]

A spectacular real time video of Artemis 1's re-entry.

What a video! That atmosphere skip with sound... wow!

[Fantomen]

It's nasa saying it takes at least 15 launches

15 launches, if you want to land on the moon with max payload. You can get away with mutch less, if you cut down the payload, use a dedecated tanker variant, that is a stretched variant of Starship, if the Raptor get more thrust (minimise the gravity loss) SpaceX is palning a weight reduction by using thiner metal skin etc

[Pann]

Starship has completed a static fire test - https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1737603984997933181

[Pann]

Booster 10 has just completed a static fire test, hopefully this means that we're close to the next Starship test flight.

https://twitter.com/LabPadre/status/1740785270973243513

[Nerraw]

Ship also fired up for a little bit. They really want to launch this thing soon.

[PACOX]

Vulcan Centaur successfully launched, carrying the first commercial lunar lander.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/08/s...unch-moon.html

Vulcan did its job but unfortunately the lander it was carrying might be in trouble. First commercial lunar lander, space is hard especially when you are first; hopefully they are able to trouble its problems. Hopefully it doesn't kill future commercial landers, 3 are supposed to happen this year.

[Nerraw]

Some kind of propellant leak or thruster malfunction. Either way, no landing this time.

- - - Updated - - -

I want to add that I fully appreciate just how transparent Astrobotic have been about this whole thing the entire time. Refreshing conduct.

[PACOX]

Not surprising but Artemis 2 and 3 have been pushed back

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/09/world...scn/index.html

Why? Everything.

The CNN article cites Starship and the spacesuits not being ready, but NASA also said it wants to fix some systems on the Orion capsule. The Orion capsule has also had some anomalies NASA wants to take the time to look at.

The Astrobotic lander is also part of the Artemis program, looking like all hopes of the lander making a soft landing are out the window. What a week for the Artemis program. The decision to delay was obviously on the books prior to this but that's some timing for you.

[Nerraw]

Ingenuity has flown for the last time.

https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/st...02013639844177

72 flights total, built for 5.

[Elegiac]

Ingenuity has flown for the last time.

https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/st...02013639844177

72 flights total, built for 5.

Again, the fact NASA is still capable of churning out engineering of this quality but is in its present state as far as its timetables is an utterly damning condemnation of how bad its administrative practices are.

Almost makes you miss the Cold War.

[Nerraw]

First time a Cygnus is being launched on a Falcon 9.