Artemis (NASA moon mission)

As far as the naming of the mission (Artemis), the first NASA manned mission to the moon was Apollo, and in Greek mythology, Artemis was the twin sister of Apollo. She is also the goddess of the moon (as well as other things). So there's both a moon connection and an Apollo connection there.
 
Puppycow said:
As far as the naming of the mission (Artemis), the first NASA manned mission to the moon was Apollo, and in Greek mythology, Artemis was the twin sister of Apollo. She is also the goddess of the moon (as well as other things). So there's both a moon connection and an Apollo connection there.
Click to expand...

Well that has to be the most amazing coincidence ever! :thumbsup:;)
 
That's very cool! I hope to see this carried out in reality.

Hans
 
I cannot see the point of the spaceship that orbits both the moon and earth. I predict that will be one of the things that will be thrown out between now and when it happens. It also depends on the next US president endorsing this project.

Apart from going to Mars what will this project achieve? The only other real reason for going back is mining.
 
rjh01 said:
I cannot see the point of the spaceship that orbits both the moon and earth. I predict that will be one of the things that will be thrown out between now and when it happens.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your objection. The point is a spaceship suitable for long-term human habitation. It can orbit Earth, Moon, Mars, Venus, the Sun... Etc. with equal facility. Obvious early stages of development will include short-duration testing in LEO, medium-duration testing in translunar and cislunar flights, and long-duration testing in both those regimes.

Sending it to the moon and back means it can contribute to the development of moon-based infrastructure, in addition to developing techniques and knowledge for long-duration missions.

Probably one of the first long-duration test missions will be an extended stay in LEO, where the crew and the craft are easily accessible from Earth if something breaks unexpectedly, or some unforseen crisis occurs.

On top of all that, once you have a spaceship that can orbit the moon, it can also orbit the Earth. It's literally impossible to throw out "orbits the Earth" at that point. Your objection makes no physical sense, unless you're predicting that they're just not going to build a spacecraft capable of leaving LEO, which seems like a really weird prediction.

tl;dr - WTF are you even talking about?
 
Last edited:
rjh01 said:
I cannot see the point of the spaceship that orbits both the moon and earth. I predict that will be one of the things that will be thrown out between now and when it happens. It also depends on the next US president endorsing this project.

Apart from going to Mars what will this project achieve? The only other real reason for going back is mining.
Click to expand...
Wait... what?
All we've done to date is live in the ascent/descent modules, then throw them away after the mission (outside of Earth orbit that is). Everything has been driving toward orbital habitats, surface habitats, reusable ascent/descent craft... and some functional deep space transfer ship.
Gravity wells are a bitch... it doesn't make sense any other way without some yet to be developed hyper efficient and affordable power (thrust) source.
Even then, the scales make more sense to; get 'em off the surface, stage in orbit, then transfer to the transit vehicle.
We could have been here 30 years ago, but at least we're pushing forward once more. Still eleventyseven new issues to solve, but this is how you do it.
 
For the past few years, the history of manned spaceflight has been "The best is the enemy of the good." Vehicles have been developed, then discarded when something newer and cooler is proposed, only to be superseded in its turn.

The Orion could have done some of the same things, but the opinion of all the other proposers of competing programs prevailed. Will Artemis be any different?
 
What I am talking about is the spacecraft called Gateway. For more details about that please watch the YouTube. I did make one small mistake. It orbits just the moon not the earth moon system as I said above.

I cannot see the point of missions to the moon first having to dock with Gateway before descending to the moon. The part that descends to the moon is not reusable as they leave part of it behind.

There might be a point in the future to have Gateway. If they can manufacture fuel and other parts needed to land and take off the moon on Gateway, or the moon and then send them up to Gateway. But that will not happen for years after we go back to the moon.

Here is them talking about Gatewayhttps://youtu.be/_T8cn2J13-4?t=176
 
Last edited:
rjh01 said:
What I am talking about is the spacecraft called Gateway. For more details about that please watch the YouTube. I did make one small mistake. It orbits just the moon not the earth moon system as I said above.

I cannot see the point of missions to the moon first having to dock with Gateway before descending to the moon. The part that descends to the moon is not reusable as they leave part of it behind.

There might be a point in the future to have Gateway. If they can manufacture fuel and other parts needed to land and take off the moon on Gateway, or the moon and then send them up to Gateway. But that will not happen for years after we go back to the moon.

Here is them talking about Gatewayhttps://youtu.be/_T8cn2J13-4?t=176
Click to expand...
Good correction, fair enough.
I haven't followed the project or watched the vid, so I can't comment on the details you mention. I did see a Manley vid posted a day or two ago but planned on watching it in another few days.
 
The video explains the Gateway a little better than the Wikipedia article. But, still doesn't go into much detail.

It doesn't seem necessary for the missions to the moon, but I suspect it adds more value than it costs. It would start as just a hub and maybe a communications center to which modules can be later attached. If it later evolved into a real space station, it wouldn't cost much more than the ISS to operate and would provide an enhanced platform for supporting operations on the Moon.

The Gateway will be much more useful in orbit around Mars. For one thing, getting people into orbit around Mars will be much easier than getting them to the surface. Humans in orbit around Mars will be able control multiple rovers and other robotic explorers in near real time. In a few weeks, they would probably be able to explore more of Mars than all of the previous landers combined.

As far as the utility of going back to the moon before going to Mars, it seems obvious to me. Developing and testing the systems in an environment where earth is only a few days away (versus months) and communication is only delayed a few seconds (versus minutes) is one benefit.
 
Last edited:
I just hope all of this actually happens while I am around to watch! I can sort of remember watching the ghostly black and white image of Armstrong climbing down the LM's ladder to the moon.

This time we will be able to follow the missions with high-def video and the astronauts Tweeting and blogging from space.

The portion of the taxes I pay which goes to support space exploration amounts to about the cost of my wife and I going to a movie once a year. Nevermind the other benefits, just the entertainment I get from it is worth the cost to me!
 
Gateway seems like it means each mission doesn't have to be a complete LM-AM-CSM stack. You can send different combos of modules, and remix them at Gateway depending on which direction you're going.
 
A very important mission of Gateway is obviously research and mission planning. For the Apollo missions, landing sites had to be planned on Earth, before the mission started, and only minor modifications were possible later on.

The Gateway orbits the moon and makes continuous observations, the expedition docs there and a carefully selected landing site can be chosen. I also assume the Gateway plays a crucial role in directing all the pre-placed gear.

It is a far more structured approach. And of course, it points forward to expeditions further out, mainly Mars.

Hans
 
Major Major said:
For the past few years, the history of manned spaceflight has been "The best is the enemy of the good." Vehicles have been developed, then discarded when something newer and cooler is proposed, only to be superseded in its turn.

The Orion could have done some of the same things, but the opinion of all the other proposers of competing programs prevailed. Will Artemis be any different?
Click to expand...

The major difference now is the available hardware. Much of what needed to mount a lunar mission already exists, it just a matter of money and imagination.
 
theprestige said:
Gateway seems like it means each mission doesn't have to be a complete LM-AM-CSM stack. You can send different combos of modules, and remix them at Gateway depending on which direction you're going.
Click to expand...

Couldn't you still send those things separately and have them rendezvous in lunar orbit without Gateway?
 
One good thing about their plans is that one mission would involve several rockets. One rocket may send the descent rocket, another may send living quarters, rover and other things they need on the moon and a third the astronauts. This means they can send a much larger payload to the moon, including more people. Then keep them on the moon for much longer. Getting them between the earth and the moon is the expensive part.

Edit: Looks like Roboramma had similar thoughts.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Yes, and the ISS could have been an orbital shipyard instead of a PR stunt. The space-industrial complex moves in mysterious ways.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the desire to provide employment for a lot of ex-Soviet engineers who might have taken jobs in North Korea, Iran, etc.

There was also the issue of depending on an expensive and unreliable launch system in the shape of the STS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom