11 ms·
NASA – Artemis I Liftoff
- kuon 4y agoI had my 7 years daughter on my lap during the launch (minutes before school here), I dropped a tear when the engines went on. It had something magical to it. Hope for the future.
- euroderf 4y agoI know what you mean. I have a memory of watching a suborbital Mercury Redstone go up, on a B&W TV at age 4 and some months. I still get a visceral thrill when one of those damn things reluctantly lifts itself up off the ground but then decides to let'er rip and pour on the speed and leap into the air like a frantic beast.
- BeefWellington 4y agoThere's something special about moon missions to me. Maybe it's just because of my age or something but this just makes me hopeful for the future.
- Trouble_007 4y agoThere's something special about NASA launches, I feel a palpable energy, it spikes my Adrenalin! - What a Buzz!
- szundi 4y agoGood old days when SpaceX launches were exciting. Hah. We soon start over this with Starship hopefully.
- kunai 4y agoThere needs to be a Godwin's law for how long we can have a thread about space exploration without somebody mentioning SpaceX
- chroma 4y agoOf course people are going to talk about SpaceX. They're the only ones who have rockets that land. It's because of this that SpaceX launches more mass to orbit than the rest of the world combined. Since last year, the majority of satellites ever launched have been put into orbit by SpaceX. You might as well suggest a Godwin's law for phone discussion where someone mentions Apple.
- kuu 4y ago> They're the only ones who have rockets that land. Blue origin also vertically land (and the Shuttle also landed)
- jve 4y agoNot to take away from Blue origin, but orbital class rocket booster landing is different and much harder than going up, hovering and going down.
- tehbeard 4y agoOne of those is sub orbital still afaik, the other is a beautiful work of engineering but very much retired due to the complexities of the design and is more of a spaceplane than a rocket.
- monk_e_boy 4y agoThey had to move space down to meet Blue Origins rocket. At least SpaceX can get to orbit.
- hoseja 4y agoI can fart very hard and land back on my chair and have achieved about as much as Blue Origin.
- mlindner 4y agoRegarding Blue Origin, if you can pad the margins of your vehicles heavily because you don't need to reach orbit, then it's a lot easier to make a vehicle reusable. This is why Scaled Composites could relatively easily throw together a vehicle that could perform this back in 2004.
- rbanffy 4y agoI find it kind of refreshing (and rationally optimistic) that Falcon 9 launches are as uneventful as Airbus 320 flights. I sincerely hope one day space launches are considered a nuisance like airports are in cities that grew around them. For me, personally, flying never gets old.
- Trouble_007 4y agoSolid Rocket Booster separation complete : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/solid-rocket-booster-separation-complete/ https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/solid-rocket-boost... Service module fairing jettison, launch abort system jettison complete : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/service-module-fairing-jettison-launch-abort-system-jettison-complete/ https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/service-module-fai... Core stage main engine cutoff, core stage separation complete : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/core-stage-main-engine-cutoff-core-stage-separation-complete/ https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/core-stage-main-en...
- Trouble_007 4y agoFurther Artemis / Orion Milestones; Orion Solar Array Deploy Complete : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/orion-solar-array-deploy-complete/ https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/orion-solar-array-... Perigee Raise Maneuver Complete : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/perigee-raise-maneuver-complete/ https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/perigee-raise-mane... Orion on Its Way to the Moon : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/orion-on-its-way-to-the-moon/ https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/orion-on-its-way-t...
- Trouble_007 4y agoFurther Artemis / Orion Milestones; Orion Begins Checkouts, Completes First Service Module Course Correction Burn : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/orion-begins-checkouts-completes-first-service-module-course-correction-burn/ https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/orion-begins-check... --- Orion Spacecraft - @NASA_Orion - 2h Mission Time: 1 days, 2 hrs, 5 min Orion is 121,949 miles from Earth, 173,277 miles from the Moon, cruising at 3,076 miles per hour. P: (-121391, -32858, -6119) V: (-2675, -1419, -540) O: 355º, 331.4º, 316.1º Track NASA's Artemis I Mission in-real-time : http://www.nasa.gov/feature/track-nasa-s-artemis-i-mission-in-real-time http://www.nasa.gov/feature/track-nasa-s-artemis-i-mission-i... #TrackArtemis
- xgbi 4y agoThose SRBs sure push hard! The launch was flawless; well done to NASA, and let’s hope the 2nd stage performs for the TLI!
- rrmm 4y agoTLI successful and orion is away.
- jzd131 4y ago
- bigiain 4y ago> Imagine what SpaceX could have produced for $21b A little under half the cost of destroying Twitter?
- aaa_aaa 4y agoYet, money was not taken from individuals' pockets.
- rob74 4y agoEr, doesn't NASA pay SpaceX for it's services? And where does NASA's funding come from again?
- aaa_aaa 4y agoIt's not the same thing. They can sell their services to anybody.
- Rebelgecko 4y agoNot without a lot of people going to jail for ITAR violations
- fragmede 4y agoassuming you're in the US, you pay taxes to the government, the government pays SpaceX to launch things, and SpaceX pays Twitter for advertising. Yay!
- yborg 4y agoSpaceX wouldn't exist without US government funding. "...NASA awarded the first Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract to SpaceX in December (2008), thus financially saving the company." Give the bureaucrats some credit.
- tppiotrowski 4y agoLive broadcast: https://youtu.be/CMLD0Lp0JBg https://youtu.be/CMLD0Lp0JBg
- valine 4y agoSo strange seeing modern HD video of a rocket that size lifting off. Can’t wait to see HD footage from the surface of the moon.
- samcheng 4y agoHonestly I had the opposite reaction about the video. Compared to the polished on-rocket camera angles and real-time telemetry we get from a SpaceX launch, tonight's grainy footage of a white spot speeding away into the distance overlaid with a monochrome low-res technical readout felt like a step backward.
- chinathrow 4y agoYes this, and night launches are terrible anyways.
- avian 4y agoI was surprised they didn't show any view from on-board cameras. Even on later Shuttle launches they had cameras on the solid rocket boosters and the external tank. The stream did show a heavily corrupted video for a few moments that could have been from the rocket. So I guess they had cameras, but maybe had problems receiving the signal from them.
- Rebelgecko 4y agoThe "media" stream on YT showed the on-board cameras continuously until a few minutes ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA9UZF-SZoQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA9UZF-SZoQ) Not sure why the main NASA stream only cut to them briefly
- mjevans 4y agoThe main NASA stream (which I watched the launch on) lacked a lot of things I'd prefer. While they did have a time-graph line, it wasn't relatively spaced just integer ticks along the line. No list of upcoming steps (1-3 next events) with associated -T+ timestamps they should happen at. Most glaringly, while they did have a T clock up at some points, there was not a single, always in the same spot, T-clock, and they had a like 90 min hold at T-00:10:00 which is absolutely useless for viewers. It was tough peeking in every so often to tell what they were even waiting for with so many 'ad's / filler segments of videos that should be on the website / youtube in a press kit.
- xrayarx 4y agoJust a little reminder: Should have launched in 2015 for the cost of 12 billion. Launched in 2022 for the cost of 23 billion. It costs 3 billion per launch. (As per Wikipedia) And it is recycled Space Shuttle design and material. Compare that with Space X Falcon Heavy launch costs of 100-150 million per launch.
- sidcool 4y ago$3 billion per launch! That seems a lot. Even if they throw away the entire rocket.
- nightski 4y agoFalcon Heavy is not designed for crew. Starship is but is still under development. On the other hand, this launched today. We can afford the extra cost, I celebrate the success. Some day Starship will have its moment as well.
- Thlom 4y agoAs far as I understand Starship can only reach LEO and requires refueling from several refueling missions while in orbit for longer missions. Great if spacex is able to pull it off, but it is years if not decades until they get there.
- szundi 4y agoSeveral refueling is actually much cheaper than having it launched in a single piece because of the "rocket equation", google it. It is a good thing.
- tehbeard 4y agodownplaying the difficulties of on orbit refuelling. This isn't kerbal space program... Fluid's gonna fluid dynamics in a 0g environment...
- 4y ago
- circular_lights 4y ago
- unethical_ban 4y agoI understand the grievances about delays and overruns, but I am disappointed that the complainers can't for one moment be excited about the most powerful rocket in 50 years launching a crew-capable module further than ever before. Let's just celebrate this moment, for a moment.
- randomsearch 4y agoIt’s incredible and the more organisations doing amazing things in space, the better! If SpaceX are focusing on unit economics and repeatable smaller launches, and NASA are still on the big ticket strategy - well, having both can only be a good thing!
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kiratp 4y agoReplace rocket with 747. It’s hard to be excited about a new 747 from Boeing that flies one way and then you throw it away. Artemis is not changing the economics of space in any way. Just going back to the moon is not very interesting IMO.
- MEMORYC_RRUPTED 4y agoIt might not be very interesting, but it sure is exciting.
- unethical_ban 4y agoIf the world didn't have a plane the size of a 747 for 50 years, and didn't have anything comparable planned when the rebuild was initiated 10 years ago, I'd be pretty psyched.
- mlindner 4y agoI understand your feelings, but this rocket has way too many issues (and I'm not talking technical ones) with it for me to feel happy about it's launch. Also, at least to me, this continues to be a distraction for NASA preventing it from moving into the future. SLS is a roadblock to be overcome, not the future. It's a re-living of the past rather than a look to the future.
- wolframhempel 4y agoCouldn't NASA have put a little of its giant budget into a presentation that's more appealing than a Wordpress blogpost? I don't think it would just be sugarcoating. Millions of people are passionate about space and billions were around the first moon landing. SpaceX has done a great job reviving this space age excitement with their pre launch interviews, life coverage and analysis. NASA could easily have done the same by directing 0.0001% of their funding to this aspect, but for some reason chose not to.
- georgeg23 4y agoNASA Livestream was pretty well put together
- Axsuul 4y agoAnd far more educational than the typical SpaceX streams.
- kunai 4y agoI'm not sure if we were watching the same livestream, but the official launch livestream was incredibly high-budget and high production values. Felt like you were watching a trailer for Top Gun or Interstellar. It's really funny to me that SpaceX fanboys can't set aside their polemics against SLS for five seconds despite a pitch-perfect launch while Starship fumbles about with inordinate delays and cost overruns -- the exact same thing SLS is most criticized for.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- systemvoltage 4y agoYea the whole magenta-orange theme is extremely cliche and does not sit with the legendary worm logo. Looks like a cheap SaaS startup presentation. NASA needs a better brand management team with swift authority to demand sub teams to abide by the identity standards.
- 4y ago
- infinite8s 4y agoWhen will society stop wasting time with chemical rocketry and start work on the only scalable approach to space travel with nuclear propulsion. We've wasted over 60 years of development pursuing a path that is physically impossible to lead to real space travel (the energy density/mass of chemical propellants means we waste an enormous amount of energy just moving the propellant into space, let alone the actual payload).
- dgoodell 4y agoYou’re proposing that we should be using nuclear propulsion to get mass from earth’s surface to earth orbit? The only proposed method of doing this that I’m aware of is nuclear pulse propulsion like project Orion. I think there are a few pretty legitimate reasons that we’re not doing that.
- science4sail 4y agoA nuclear salt water rocket has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 40, so you could presumably use a NSWR to launch payloads to orbit. If you're going to turn the launch pad into a radioactive wasteland, might as well go all the way :). http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#id--Nuclear_Thermal--Gas_Core--Open_Cycle--Nuclear_Salt_Water http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php...
- elil17 4y agoSeems like a weird take to me. Chemical rocketry can meet all of our space "needs" (e.g. satellite launches) and many of our space "wants" (e.g. solar system exploration, large space telescopes). The "chemical" part of chemical rocketry has proven to be pretty economical - the fuel itself is just a small portion of the cost of a rocket. It's building the thing that's expensive. Why incur the safety hazards of nuclear propulsion or the large fixed costs of something like a sky crane when we've just developed reusable rockets?