Big Sage, SASS #49891 Life Posted April 3 Posted April 3 On 4/1/2026 at 4:56 PM, Buckshot Bear said: There must be a heck of a lot of fuel on board to flame for that long! Once they leave the gravity and earth's atmosphere, they need very little fuel. They need some fuel to burn the engine again to turn around and return to earth. If they don't burn the engine to return, it could go on to who knows where in space. Once they get it turned around and going back to earth, earth's gravity takes over. They some more fuel turn it around and slow it down so it can land on earth safely. Quote
watab kid Posted April 4 Posted April 4 there is a reason there are muliple stages to the launch rocket , i just wonder how much of it they recover ? can they reuse any of it ? kinda like my cigars a lot of money up in smoke Quote
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted April 4 Posted April 4 I'll be more impressed when they open a Burger King or Dominos on the moon. If we occupy the moon first how will we secure those borders? 1 1 Quote
Sedalia Dave Posted April 4 Posted April 4 (edited) 11 hours ago, watab kid said: there is a reason there are muliple stages to the launch rocket , i just wonder how much of it they recover ? can they reuse any of it ? kinda like my cigars a lot of money up in smoke Different fuels and engine designs based on how dense the atmosphere is. The first stage consumed almost 2.2 Million pounds of Liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen (LH2 / LOX) This combined with the 2 solid rocket boosters provided enough thrust to reach earth orbit. Be jettisoning the first stage and expended solid rocket boosters reduced the system weight by about 250,000 pounds. That is mass the 2nd stage doesn't have to propel. Stage 2 also uses LH2 / LOX for fuel but has a different engine optimized for use in space. Stage 2 will provide the thrust needed to send the Orion capsule on a Lunar intercept trajectory. Jettisoning the 2nd stage reduced the mass by another 7690 pounds. Once on its way, Artemis II will coast on it's way to the moon. The return trip will rely heavily on the moon's gravity to slow and reverse the trajectory of the Orion capsule so that it will return to earth. Every pound in weight reduction reduces the total fuel requirement about 20:1. So when you reduce the weight by 1 pound you need 20 pounds less fuel to escape earth's gravity. Edited April 4 by Sedalia Dave 2 Quote
Gateway Kid SASS# 70038 Life Posted April 4 Posted April 4 11 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said: I'll be more impressed when they open a Burger King or Dominos on the moon. If we occupy the moon first how will we secure those borders? Could probably put those right next to the Starbucks already there! LOL Regards Gateway Kid 1 Quote
Cypress Sun Posted April 4 Posted April 4 32 minutes ago, Gateway Kid SASS# 70038 Life said: Could probably put those right next to the Starbucks already there! LOL Regards Gateway Kid Add in Subway and they'll have a 'fast food' place at every crater in town! 2 Quote
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted April 4 Posted April 4 Probably gonna need some cell phone towers, too. Quote
Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 Posted April 4 Posted April 4 2 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said: Be jettisoning the first stage and expended solid rocket boosters reduced the system weight by about 250,000 pounds. That is mass the 2nd stage doesn't have to propel. Jettisoning the 2nd stage reduced the mass by another 7690 pounds. I think that Alpo wanted to know what happens to the jettisoned boosters. Are they recovered, or do they just become artificial reefs for the fish to live in? Quote
Trailrider #896 Posted April 4 Posted April 4 49 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said: I think that Alpo wanted to know what happens to the jettisoned boosters. Are they recovered, or do they just become artificial reefs for the fish to live in? In this case the SRB's and the 1st stage of the SLS do become so much metal junk on the ocean floor. On the Shuttle, we did recover the SRB's using a drogue chute to orient the rocket tail first, then at about 10,000 ft, deployed three 136 ft diameter nylon ribbon parachutes in a reefed condition (two bands that prevent the chute from opening all the way at once), then guillotine reefing line cutters fired in sequence to open each chute fully. Water impact was about 60 mph. In the event that one of the three chutes failed to deploy or didn't open fully, impact was faster, resulting in some damage to the aft skirt. On landing, the boosters fell over on their sides. The recovery boats went out and installed a plug in the nozzles, recovered the chutes (which had floats attached to the aft risers, for washing away the saltwater, and refurbishment at the Cape for reuse. The boosters were sent back to Utah for refurbishment and reloading. I worked this system as a systems engineer until we lost the follow-on contract to United Space Boosters, in Huntsville, AL. 5 Quote
watab kid Posted April 5 Posted April 5 11 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said: Different fuels and engine designs based on how dense the atmosphere is. The first stage consumed almost 2.2 Million pounds of Liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen (LH2 / LOX) This combined with the 2 solid rocket boosters provided enough thrust to reach earth orbit. Be jettisoning the first stage and expended solid rocket boosters reduced the system weight by about 250,000 pounds. That is mass the 2nd stage doesn't have to propel. Stage 2 also uses LH2 / LOX for fuel but has a different engine optimized for use in space. Stage 2 will provide the thrust needed to send the Orion capsule on a Lunar intercept trajectory. Jettisoning the 2nd stage reduced the mass by another 7690 pounds. Once on its way, Artemis II will coast on it's way to the moon. The return trip will rely heavily on the moon's gravity to slow and reverse the trajectory of the Orion capsule so that it will return to earth. Every pound in weight reduction reduces the total fuel requirement about 20:1. So when you reduce the weight by 1 pound you need 20 pounds less fuel to escape earth's gravity. a friend on another site suggested that the moon base would provide a launch for a mars explorer with 1/6 the gravitational force to overcome - that actually made sense , 1 Quote
Trailrider #896 Posted April 5 Posted April 5 Possibly. But you still have to get a ship assembled that would be large enough to carry the astronauts (number TBD}; shuttles to go from the ship down to the surface and back. Anything that big would have to be assembled in Low Earth Orbit, which would make it impracticable to send to the Moon first. That is why Gateway has been cancelled. Quote
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted April 6 Posted April 6 23 hours ago, watab kid said: a friend on another site suggested that the moon base would provide a launch for a mars explorer with 1/6 the gravitational force to overcome - that actually made sense , But still not enough air, water, etc to get anyone there, much less home again. Suicide mission until we solve those supply problems. Quote
watab kid Posted April 6 Posted April 6 4 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said: But still not enough air, water, etc to get anyone there, much less home again. Suicide mission until we solve those supply problems. details to be worked out i guess Quote
Rip Snorter Posted April 6 Posted April 6 They have found ice - air and water follow given power, and we have transportable nuclear reactors. Certainly dangerous, but not suicide. 1 Quote
Rye Miles #13621 Posted April 6 Author Posted April 6 They said this mission will go 1.4 million miles, that’s farther than any other mission by roughly twice! They’ll reach the other side of the moon today at around 2:30 est give or take an hour or so. Quote
Sixgun Seamus Posted April 6 Posted April 6 (edited) 1 hour ago, Rye Miles #13621 said: They said this mission will go 1.4 million miles, that’s farther than any other mission by roughly twice! They’ll reach the other side of the moon today at around 2:30 est give or take an hour or so. I think it's all fake. I looked up at the moon this morning and couldn't see the astronauts at all. Edited April 6 by Sixgun Seamus 3 Quote
John Kloehr Posted April 6 Posted April 6 On 4/4/2026 at 11:35 AM, Cypress Sun said: Add in Subway and they'll have a 'fast food' place at every crater in town! Just did a rough calculation. Assuming spacing similar to where I live, the moon can have about 3.6 million Dollar General stores. 4 Quote
Rye Miles #13621 Posted April 6 Author Posted April 6 (edited) Well they did it, they reached the other side of the moon. 👍🇺🇸 Also the farthest any human has gone by 4100 miles farther. Edited April 6 by Rye Miles #13621 Quote
Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680 Posted April 7 Posted April 7 On 4/4/2026 at 10:00 AM, Gateway Kid SASS# 70038 Life said: Could probably put those right next to the Starbucks already there! LOL Regards Gateway Kid There's already a Starbucks next to the Starbucks! 2 Quote
Cypress Sun Posted April 7 Posted April 7 1 hour ago, Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680 said: There's already a Starbucks next to the Starbucks! Naw, the Starbucks are on either side the Crater Barrel restaurant. 4 Quote
Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 Posted April 7 Posted April 7 3 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said: Naw, the Starbucks are on either side the Crater Barrel restaurant. There's a Circle K across the street from them, with a Dollar General next to it. The Super Walmart is under construction. 1 Quote
Buckshot Bear Posted April 7 Posted April 7 Now we finally know what the backside of the moon looks like. 9 Quote
J-BAR #18287 Posted April 8 Posted April 8 NASA needs help making the photos and videos more exciting. More than one post online has criticized the camera work from Artemis. The criticism is valid. A great space adventure should be documented with great pictures. Liftoff, moon flyby, everything. Taxpayers are paying the bills. We don't need views of a control room with crappy views of the moon. I love the excitement of space exploration. I wish NASA did. 2 1 Quote
Rip Snorter Posted April 8 Posted April 8 Qualification for these missions is extremely demanding. Not everyone is a great photographer - and that qualification would be a lesser one. I suspect there is a great deal that has been captured, some of which will be shared after the austronauts safe return. 1 Quote
J-BAR #18287 Posted April 8 Posted April 8 2 minutes ago, Rip Snorter said: Qualification for these missions is extremely demanding. Not everyone is a great photographer - and that qualification would be a lesser one. I suspect there is a great deal that has been captured, some of which will be shared after the austronauts safe return. One can hope. Quote
Trailrider #896 Posted April 8 Posted April 8 1 hour ago, Rip Snorter said: Qualification for these missions is extremely demanding. Not everyone is a great photographer - and that qualification would be a lesser one. I suspect there is a great deal that has been captured, some of which will be shared after the austronauts safe return. Regardless of the astronauts' photographic skills, there are limitations as to how the cameras will pick up the color variations and images, in spite of modern photographic technology. There are only so many (two?) windows, and each crew member is allowed time at them. The impressions and descriptions each astronaut sees will also enhance the data. Plus, I would think that a lot of the camera imagery is on film or digital to be processed and evaluated when they return. Why not telemeter the imagery back to Earth from space? Because it would take a lot (too much) bandwidth, plus you can't do that when the spacecraft is behind the Moon, just as there is no communications possible then either. The descriptions radioed back when the spacecraft was in contact were quite detailed as it was. They had a good course correction burn this evening, and will see if another might be necessary. Why are such burns necessary if this is a "free return" mission? To insure the spacecraft hits the atmosphere at just the right angle to minimize the effect on the heatshield, as well as to insure they splash down in the Pacific near San Diego. Godspeed, Integrity! 4 Quote
Rye Miles #13621 Posted April 8 Author Posted April 8 (edited) Photos from Artemis II of the other side of the moon Edited April 8 by Rye Miles #13621 2 1 Quote
Pat Riot Posted April 8 Posted April 8 I am looking forward to the leaked photos of the Nazi moon base as described in that movie documentary Iron Sky. 1 1 Quote
Trailrider #896 Posted April 8 Posted April 8 4 hours ago, Pat Riot said: I am looking forward to the leaked photos of the Nazi moon base as described in that movie documentary Iron Sky. Not the Nazi base in Rocketship Gallaleo? 1 Quote
Sixgun Seamus Posted April 8 Posted April 8 I still can't understand all this hoopla. Back in the 60's, at least some of you old codgers will remember, Dick Tracy used to make frequent trips to the moon and back in the Space Coupe. He visited Moon Valley on the far side of the moon. Heck, he even married the Moon Maid. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.