Artemis (NASA moon mission)

That is spectacular.

My Dad says he held me up to the TV when I was a toddler so I could say I watched the first man on the moon. I don't remember it but I bet the picture was just a bit lower in quality.

I needed something cool to see today, thanks NASA.
 
That is spectacular.

My Dad says he held me up to the TV when I was a toddler so I could say I watched the first man on the moon. I don't remember it but I bet the picture was just a bit lower in quality. I needed something cool to see today, thanks NASA.

It was awful. My then girlfriend and now wife watched it on a big screen (must have been at least 50 inches) at Toronto City Hall Square along with a few hundred other people. We were close enough to see a fuzzy grey blob step foot on a fuzzy grey ground. I guess people a few rows back could at least say they were there.

Here it is:

 
It was awful. My then girlfriend and now wife watched it on a big screen (must have been at least 50 inches) at Toronto City Hall Square along with a few hundred other people. We were close enough to see a fuzzy grey blob step foot on a fuzzy grey ground. I guess people a few rows back could at least say they were there.

Here it is:


It was
- shot through a window of Eagle,
- transmitted to Earth
- displayed on a TV with a nonstandard number of lines
- recorded on a standard TV camera
- transmitted around the world
- broadcast by all the TV stations

So yes, the quality was poor. To add insult to injury the original recording has been lost. After all the hardware it was recorded on was valuable and it was considered what was recorded had no value so it was reused.
 
That is spectacular.



My Dad says he held me up to the TV when I was a toddler so I could say I watched the first man on the moon. I don't remember it but I bet the picture was just a bit lower in quality.



I needed something cool to see today, thanks NASA.
My mother did the same!
 
That is spectacular.

My Dad says he held me up to the TV when I was a toddler so I could say I watched the first man on the moon. I don't remember it but I bet the picture was just a bit lower in quality.

I needed something cool to see today, thanks NASA.

In addition to being spectacular, it provides a good example of how dark the moon actually is.
 
The first live image from Aretamis 1 after it swung around the moon on its way home made me gasp. It looks like a scene from 2001.

 
Some spectacular video of the launch with excellent sound. Headphones definitely recommend, although it sounds great through my living room sound system, too. The shots from the launch complex are especially impressive, particularly when the SRBs ignite.

 
Some spectacular video of the launch with excellent sound. Headphones definitely recommend, although it sounds great through my living room sound system, too. The shots from the launch complex are especially impressive, particularly when the SRBs ignite.



That thing fairly leaps off the launchpad. I'm used to a much more sedate ascent while watching big rockets.
 
Some spectacular video of the launch with excellent sound. Headphones definitely recommend, although it sounds great through my living room sound system, too. The shots from the launch complex are especially impressive, particularly when the SRBs ignite.


I like that the audio was not adjusted to match the sound of the launch with the video - if that makes sense. I mean that they kept it real, so if the sound takes 20 seconds to get from the launchpad to the viewer, then that's what we see. We see the rocket light up and start moving but don't hear it until 20 seconds or so later (from the first camera position in the video).

It's surprising (and disappointing) how often that sort of thing gets edited out of videos. I watch a lot of video coming out of Ukraine, and they often sync up the sounds of bombs with the appearance of bombs even it you can naturally assume that the sound actually took some time to get to the camera. There's no need to edit the video like that, but they do it anyway.

Like this one, for example: Underwater nuke test. It's obvious that the camera is some miles from the blast but the image and sound of the blast have been synced to remove the speed of sound. That just seems unnecessary.
 
Disadvantage: No 'off' switch, whatsoever. It's gonna run as long as it's meant to run, and not a moment less. :eek:

...under normal circumstances.

Pedant Alert!

But there is a dramatic off-switch. There are explosives along the body of the SRBs that, when activated, split open the SRB causing the pressure in the combustion chamber to quickly drop and the solid propellant to stop burning.

Of course, this is part of the Flight Termination System used in an emergency. It was used after the Challenger accident. In the videos of that tragic accident, you can see the SRBs start to fly off, still under power, until the Range Safety Officer triggers the FTS and the SRBs break apart.

Even more pedantic ...

Solid rocket motors are designed to produce specific thrust curves mostly by varying the geometry of the core. Many are designed to produce a regressive burn (higher thrust at first) because you often need that.

The hobby rockets like I fly usually require air flowing past the fins to be stable so they are designed with high initial thrust so they are going fast enough when leaving the launch rod or rail.

But many of our hobby motors have progressive burns mainly because they are easier to produce, but also for specific situations, for example to reduce drag and stress at lower altitudes where the air is thicker.
 
Last edited:
I've beaked about the production quality of the launch broadcast. You might think I can't be impressed by anything low-res. Of course, that's not the case:

Artemis I Earth-moon transit

Wow!

I've never seen that before, and neither have you (not counting if you viewed it earlier today ;) )! We know from physics and common navigation (even here on Earth) that at some point, transits have to happen... we just don't often get to see this particular one!
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom