Artemis 1 going to the Moon (launched Nov 16)

  • Context: NASA 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mfb
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Moon
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the Artemis 1 mission, its launch preparations, and the implications of its testing for future lunar exploration. Participants explore technical aspects, historical context, and the significance of the mission within NASA's broader goals for human spaceflight.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the Artemis 1 mission is a high-stakes test for the Space Launch System (SLS), emphasizing the need for human rating to proceed with the Moon program.
  • Concerns are raised about potential delays affecting the $21 billion program, with some arguing that a successful launch would establish the SLS as the most powerful orbital booster.
  • Several participants express awe at the size of the rocket, with comparisons made to the Saturn V.
  • Questions arise regarding the trajectory of the core stage after launch, with some participants speculating on its near-orbital path and comparing it to ICBM trajectories.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of missed launch attempts, with some arguing that the purpose of the test is to gather information rather than to achieve immediate success.
  • Critiques are made regarding the overall direction of NASA's lunar program, with some participants expressing disappointment over perceived similarities to the Apollo program and questioning the efficiency of current strategies.
  • Some participants reference historical context, sharing personal experiences and reflections on the evolution of space exploration since the Apollo missions.
  • Technical issues are reported, including problems with fueling and engine conditioning, leading to a scrub of the launch attempt.
  • There are discussions about the potential need to roll the rocket back to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) if issues cannot be resolved on the pad, which could lead to significant delays.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the implications of the Artemis program, the technical challenges faced, and the historical context of NASA's lunar missions. No consensus is reached on the overall effectiveness or direction of the program.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the current testing process, including skipped tests during the wet dress rehearsal and concerns about the core stage's fueling cycles. The discussion reflects a range of opinions on the historical and technical aspects of the Artemis mission.

  • #181
Vanadium 50 said:
Exactly. That's why I am surprised the requirement was zero, not less than some amount.
Attitude control thrusters give you something like centimeter per second corrections. Good enough to change the orientation of your spacecraft, but not enough to have a useful impact on your trajectory. Close enough to zero to just use zero.
.Scott said:
But from the article linked to by @mfb , a form of skipping was apparently standard practice.
That was a proposal but not the trajectory the Apollo capsules used.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #182
mfb said:
That [Ballistic Lob] was a proposal but not the trajectory the Apollo capsules used.
Per the document you linked to, this was used for AS-202 - which was part of the Apollo program and included an CM-011 Apollo capsule (but without the crew couches).

Here is an excerpt from the NASA page describing the mission (my emphasis):
One hour and 11 minutes after liftoff, the CM separated from the SM and turned its heat shield in the direction of flight to prepare for reentry. At an altitude of 400,000 feet, or about 75 miles, the capsule encountered the first traces of the Earth’s atmosphere at a velocity of 19,440 miles per hour. The CM’s guidance system steered it through a double-skip reentry, first descending to an altitude of about 40 miles, then using the capsule’s lift capability to rise back to nearly 50 miles before continuing the final descent. This reduced physical loads on the capsule. The heat shield reached a temperature of about 1,500 degrees Celsius while the cabin interior never exceeded 21 degrees Celsius, or 70 degrees Fahrenheit.

However (also from the NASA link):
The splashdown point was 235 miles short of the targeted area, later determined to be caused by the CM’s lower-than-predicted lift-to-drag ratio. It took the prime recovery ship, the U.S.S. Hornet (CV-12), eight and a half hours to reach the capsule and execute the retrieval.

That was not enough to discourage NASA from using the skip.
SA-501 was an uncrewed mission that included a fully configured Apollo.

The quote below is from the NASA Apollo 4 web page :
At an altitude of 76 miles, while traveling at 24,974 miles per hour, the Apollo 4 Command Module encountered the first tendrils of Earth’s upper atmosphere, its heat shield absorbing the heat of reentry, reaching a temperature of 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit while the cabin temperature remained comfortable enough for a crew. After dipping down to an altitude of 35 miles, the spacecraft used its aerodynamic lift to briefly skip back out of the atmosphere, reaching a height of 45 miles before continuing the descent. This double-skip reentry reduced deceleration and heat loads on the spacecraft.
... and with better result:
Within 20 minutes of splashdown, U.S. Navy frogmen had attached a flotation collar around the spacecraft. After the Bennington pulled alongside the capsule, sailors hoisted it aboard, along with the spacecraft’s apex cover that protected the parachutes during flight and one of the three main parachutes. The entire recovery operation lasted about two hours.
The manned Apollo launches started with Apollo 7. So far, I have found no detailed descriptions of those reentries.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Tom.G and berkeman
  • #183
 
  • #184
Hydrolox burns so cleanly that you can hardly notice the center core engines running at full thrust between the solid rocket boosters with their extremely bright exhaust.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: nsaspook

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
68K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K