Artemis II
Joined: Nov 2025
Aviation Qualifications: SLF
Posts: 108
Likes: 86
From: Brisbane
If anyone is interested it the actual orbital tracks of Artimus II and (included), Artimus 1 and Apollo 8, this clip shows some nice stuff.
Some nice info of the moons orbit and shows how much work (math's), must have gone into working it all out.
Artimus II starts at 9:45
Some nice info of the moons orbit and shows how much work (math's), must have gone into working it all out.
Artimus II starts at 9:45
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,391
Likes: 678
From: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Nostalgia for the NASA launch and mission tv broadcasts of old? ....
Skipping anything much autobiographical other than to say that I have tried to follow NASA spaceflight, space science and (to a lesser extent) aeronautics fairly closely since . . . well, not actually since the failed launch of Vanguard in December 1957 but by the time of Alan Shepherd's suborbital flight four years later, I was stridently captivated by NASA insofar as 1960s-era tv coverage (and kid-age books) allowed. I note this because when I think back to Jules Bergman's commentary during NASA crewed spaceflight missions, the viewing public obviously is not getting the same quality. Even set "only" in the anchorman role, Cronkite had such gravitas.
A caveat to the decline in useful and meaningful coverage is found in the appearance on CNN yesterday of Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, the noted astrophysicist. (Another prof also was present for the segment but I haven't recalled his name, unfortunately.)
Anyone missing those earlier eminences of broadcast coverage might find solace in two facts, one positive, the other not so much.
The current SLS upper stage is powered by an RL-10 engine (uncertain as to the iterated variant, though Wikipedia indicates it is an RL-10C-1-1, standard for the Centaur V upper stage). The RL-10 was developed in the late 1950s by Pratt and Whitney and in its manufacturing legacy, boasts as cool a space-truckin' name as Aerojet Rocketdyne. All the CNN etc blatherers in existence cannot detract from the continuity of "space coolness" represented by the role - the ongoing role - of the RL-10.
On the downside, though. A preeminent and prolific voice in what might be called the "space law pacifist and anti-U.S. cadre" is a certain attorney with several advanced degrees. I believe this person's original specialty area of law was international humanitarian law, or the law of armed conflict. As an academic pedigree, it's all just grand. But not unlike the blathering types, this attorney too often does not know what they're talking about, and it's embarassing. For example, in discussing some aspect of Space Law in a seminar presentation, the attorney stated that Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chafee had died in a launch accident. Which was true, in part - they died, and it happened on a launch pad. But as anyone who knows even the simplest things about space programs and technologies would be quick to point out, the Apollo 1 fire occurred during a test, not a launch attempt. Apollo 1 is not something anyone who wants to be taken seriously can afford to badly fumble in substantive terms and retain credibility - again, not unlike the blathering types unavoidable on broadcasts.
Almost as bad, the attorney repeated the same type of error recently. They referred to the wet dress rehearsal tests of the SLS/Orion stack which did not result in readiness for launch - as launch attempts which were "scrubbed". Not quite; no launch was scheduled for the date of those tests, kinda sorta like the nomenclature "wet dress rehearsal" suggests, no?
So a stack (pun intended) of advanced law degrees is not insulation against getting the facts wrong about fundamental aspects of space programs and technologies. At least this attorney did not refer to the RL-10 as being built by Boeing. At least, not yet.
Skipping anything much autobiographical other than to say that I have tried to follow NASA spaceflight, space science and (to a lesser extent) aeronautics fairly closely since . . . well, not actually since the failed launch of Vanguard in December 1957 but by the time of Alan Shepherd's suborbital flight four years later, I was stridently captivated by NASA insofar as 1960s-era tv coverage (and kid-age books) allowed. I note this because when I think back to Jules Bergman's commentary during NASA crewed spaceflight missions, the viewing public obviously is not getting the same quality. Even set "only" in the anchorman role, Cronkite had such gravitas.
A caveat to the decline in useful and meaningful coverage is found in the appearance on CNN yesterday of Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, the noted astrophysicist. (Another prof also was present for the segment but I haven't recalled his name, unfortunately.)
Anyone missing those earlier eminences of broadcast coverage might find solace in two facts, one positive, the other not so much.
The current SLS upper stage is powered by an RL-10 engine (uncertain as to the iterated variant, though Wikipedia indicates it is an RL-10C-1-1, standard for the Centaur V upper stage). The RL-10 was developed in the late 1950s by Pratt and Whitney and in its manufacturing legacy, boasts as cool a space-truckin' name as Aerojet Rocketdyne. All the CNN etc blatherers in existence cannot detract from the continuity of "space coolness" represented by the role - the ongoing role - of the RL-10.
On the downside, though. A preeminent and prolific voice in what might be called the "space law pacifist and anti-U.S. cadre" is a certain attorney with several advanced degrees. I believe this person's original specialty area of law was international humanitarian law, or the law of armed conflict. As an academic pedigree, it's all just grand. But not unlike the blathering types, this attorney too often does not know what they're talking about, and it's embarassing. For example, in discussing some aspect of Space Law in a seminar presentation, the attorney stated that Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chafee had died in a launch accident. Which was true, in part - they died, and it happened on a launch pad. But as anyone who knows even the simplest things about space programs and technologies would be quick to point out, the Apollo 1 fire occurred during a test, not a launch attempt. Apollo 1 is not something anyone who wants to be taken seriously can afford to badly fumble in substantive terms and retain credibility - again, not unlike the blathering types unavoidable on broadcasts.
Almost as bad, the attorney repeated the same type of error recently. They referred to the wet dress rehearsal tests of the SLS/Orion stack which did not result in readiness for launch - as launch attempts which were "scrubbed". Not quite; no launch was scheduled for the date of those tests, kinda sorta like the nomenclature "wet dress rehearsal" suggests, no?
So a stack (pun intended) of advanced law degrees is not insulation against getting the facts wrong about fundamental aspects of space programs and technologies. At least this attorney did not refer to the RL-10 as being built by Boeing. At least, not yet.
Joined: Nov 2025
Aviation Qualifications: SLF
Posts: 108
Likes: 86
From: Brisbane
Nostalgia for the NASA launch and mission tv broadcasts of old? ....
The current SLS upper stage is powered by an RL-10 engine (uncertain as to the iterated variant, though Wikipedia indicates it is an RL-10C-1-1, standard for the Centaur V upper stage). The RL-10 was developed in the late 1950s by Pratt and Whitney and in its manufacturing legacy, boasts as cool a space-truckin' name as Aerojet Rocketdyne
The current SLS upper stage is powered by an RL-10 engine (uncertain as to the iterated variant, though Wikipedia indicates it is an RL-10C-1-1, standard for the Centaur V upper stage). The RL-10 was developed in the late 1950s by Pratt and Whitney and in its manufacturing legacy, boasts as cool a space-truckin' name as Aerojet Rocketdyne
But on the engine part: (in my feeble mind and not AI's), wasn't all 'Rocket' stuff done by the Soviets and Germany?
AFAIK, the 'Full flow' that Space X uses is of original Soviet design.
Of course technology and design tweaks will improve any engine.
Yes, a tragedy with the internal fire, (comms crossed over voltage + pure oxygen), wasn't it a design flaw added that mix - internal opening as against the 'away' opening...?
Space is hard and is pushing mankind to keep advancing in this area.
One looks at the 'latest' 3.7mtr crew area and it's like packed sardines!
Is the weight that critical to not have a more spacious capsule.
On that note, I notice the lack of paint job as the first Shuttle launch - straight from the factory
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 3,395
Likes: 327
From: near an aeroplane
It is worth keeping an eye out for the new images here: https://images.nasa.gov/ or here: https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-ii-multimedia/
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,391
Likes: 678
From: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Interesting ramble on your post
But on the engine part: (in my feeble mind and not AI's), wasn't all 'Rocket' stuff done by the Soviets and Germany?
AFAIK, the 'Full flow' that Space X uses is of original Soviet design.
Of course technology and design tweaks will improve any engine.
Yes, a tragedy with the internal fire, (comms crossed over voltage + pure oxygen), wasn't it a design flaw added that mix - internal opening as against the 'away' opening...?
Space is hard and is pushing mankind to keep advancing in this area.
One looks at the 'latest' 3.7mtr crew area and it's like packed sardines!
Is the weight that critical to not have a more spacious capsule.
On that note, I notice the lack of paint job as the first Shuttle launch - straight from the factory
But on the engine part: (in my feeble mind and not AI's), wasn't all 'Rocket' stuff done by the Soviets and Germany?
AFAIK, the 'Full flow' that Space X uses is of original Soviet design.
Of course technology and design tweaks will improve any engine.
Yes, a tragedy with the internal fire, (comms crossed over voltage + pure oxygen), wasn't it a design flaw added that mix - internal opening as against the 'away' opening...?
Space is hard and is pushing mankind to keep advancing in this area.
One looks at the 'latest' 3.7mtr crew area and it's like packed sardines!
Is the weight that critical to not have a more spacious capsule.
On that note, I notice the lack of paint job as the first Shuttle launch - straight from the factory
Crewed spacecraft have always been cramped, and in comparison the Apollo Command Module (with three astronauts) - as I recall it in photographs - was even more cramped than Orion. The Space Shuttle Orbiter may have been somewhat less constrained, but its strictly Earth-orbiting role makes the comparison somewhat inapplicable.
And yes, though I'm not an engineer, it's fairly commonly observed that weight is a primary limiting factor in spacecraft design, whether for crewed spacecraft or satellites.
To the extent the Integrity Orion spacecraft (and/or the ESA Service Module) are relatively unpainted, perhaps this relates to the test flight objectives of the Artemis II mission.
On Apollo 1, without question there were design flaws. The reports following the accident (though I have not reviewed them in some time) document these flaws extensively and in-depth. As you mention, the pure oxygen interior atmosphere, and hatch design were major factors. (Appropos of my rant against ignorance on the part of would-be scolders of U.S. policy, nothing about the causes and effects leading to the Apollo 1 fire and deaths of three astronauts justifies referring to the accident as having occurred during a "launch.")
Rockets, missiles, space launch vehicles. Nothing about the history of these machines, as it has unfolded in the United States, should downplay or understate the tremendous role played by Dr. Prof. Werner von Braun. So, at the risk of understatement here, yes indeed, work done by "the Germans" has been foundational. Perhaps in his role in the achievement which the Saturn V moon rocket constitutes Dr. Prof. von Braun - or at least his karma - finds redemption from his wartime acts.
But whether or not the RL-10 engine, in its earliest design and testing in the late 1950s, drew heavily, or at all, upon the legacy of the V-2 and "Paper Clips" of certain types, I don't know.
The Russians did (according to some down-'n-dirty interweb reading) develop full-flow engine technology. The RL-10 however is not a full-flow type of engine. Perhaps of equal or greater relevance is that the U.S. relied on RD-180 engines built by Russia (some possibly produced in the U.S. under license) for the Atlas V. There is a Space Foundation Fact Sheet on the history of the RD-180 and RD-181 in the U.S., (based on its citations, originally written circa 2013-2014 and updated since then).
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 8th April 2026 at 15:18.
Joined: Feb 2015
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,765
Likes: 359
From: Cincinnati, Ohio
Side story concerning Dr. von Braun: I attended a well-respected private secondary school in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. The school's stationery letterhead states "A Christian Preparatory School for Young Men and Women." They were not kidding about the Christian part! Consumption of alcohol was strictly verboten. Drinking any spirituous concoction other than Communion wine would result in immediate expulsion, no explanations nor excuses accepted!
And so it came to pass that graduation day approached. Wernher von Braun's lovely daughter was the Valedictorian of her class; the guest speaker was to be her father. Uh Oh! Guess who got caught drinking a martini the night before graduation? Yep! By a faculty member, no less! Out she went and her father was a no-show. She never did receive her sheep skin and we never got to hear Wernher count backwards from ten.
And now back to our regularly scheduled thread!
- Ed
And so it came to pass that graduation day approached. Wernher von Braun's lovely daughter was the Valedictorian of her class; the guest speaker was to be her father. Uh Oh! Guess who got caught drinking a martini the night before graduation? Yep! By a faculty member, no less! Out she went and her father was a no-show. She never did receive her sheep skin and we never got to hear Wernher count backwards from ten.
And now back to our regularly scheduled thread!
- Ed
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,662
Likes: 7,348
From: Peripatetic
[QUOTE]Practice for the Artemis II return is taking place off the Coast of California including the NT-43A (aka RATT55) this evening.
The Artemis II Orion spacecraft is scheduled to return to Earth on Friday, April 10, 2026, with a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of San Diego, California, at approximately 8:07 p.m. EDT (5:07 p.m. PDT).
Reentry into Earth's atmosphere begins around 6:33 p.m. EDT.
[/QUOTE]
The Artemis II Orion spacecraft is scheduled to return to Earth on Friday, April 10, 2026, with a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of San Diego, California, at approximately 8:07 p.m. EDT (5:07 p.m. PDT).
Reentry into Earth's atmosphere begins around 6:33 p.m. EDT.
[/QUOTE]
Joined: Sep 2014
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 282
Likes: 108
From: Germany
Regarding the Orion return. I understand there will be a two steps reentry. The first one being an aerobrake maneuver. Will that one also be observed via a NASA WB-57 or alike? And where on the globe will that be taking place, also the East Pacific?
Tabs please!
Joined: Jun 2004
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,201
Likes: 1,098
From: Biffins Bridge
Capsule re-entries tend to be a skip and a plunge. The skip uses the aerodynamic properties of the underside to generate lift (and therefore drag) to climb before the final entry at a lower speed. The Shuttle was not the first lifting body space vehicle. Apollo did it decades earlier.
Joined: Feb 2002
Aviation Qualifications: AME
Posts: 4,182
Likes: 1,116
From: UK
If you want to argue the pros and cons of different rocket designs, this is a good place to start. It's 6 years old now and things have moved on a bit but the way Tim Dodd explains these quite complex machines to the layman is well worth seeing.
Joined: Sep 2014
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 282
Likes: 108
From: Germany
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 670
Likes: 128
From: London
I apologise. I was egregiously confusing the Merlin engines which current SpaceX rockets use with the Raptor which is being used on the Starship. I think It's probable that Raptor wasn't complete or flown when choices about the SLS were being made. I think you still cannot compare them on price yet because one is a leftover freebie and we don't know the price of the newer version of it.
Joined: Apr 2008
Aviation Qualifications: SLF
Posts: 1,118
Likes: 228
From: troposphere
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 3,395
Likes: 327
From: near an aeroplane
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,662
Likes: 7,348
From: Peripatetic
................
Four humans are about to fall into a 10,000°C wall of plasma at 25,000 mph with a heat shield NASA knows is flawed. This evening. Off the coast of San Diego.
Orion hits the atmosphere at 36 times the speed of sound. The air can't move out of the way fast enough, so it compresses into a shockwave twice as hot as the surface of the Sun. The plasma ionizes the surrounding air and blocks all radio signals. For several minutes, the crew is falling faster than any humans have ever traveled inside a spacecraft, and nobody on the ground can talk to them.
The heat shield is 186 blocks of a material called Avcoat glued to a titanium skeleton. It works by charring, melting, and disintegrating on purpose. The destruction of the outer layer is the cooling mechanism. There is no backup system. No redundancy. The heat shield works or the crew doesn't come home.
The Artemis I heat shield came back with over 100 locations where chunks had ripped off. NASA spent two years figuring out why, concluded it was gas pressure building up inside the material during reentry, and decided not to replace the shield. They changed the flight path instead. Steeper angle, less time in the danger zone.
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said publicly that this approach "is not the right way to do things long term."
The capsule will slow from 25,000 mph to 17 mph in thirteen minutes. Parachutes don't even deploy until the last four. Everything before that is managed by a curved piece of titanium and glue entering air twice as hot as the Sun.
Tomorrow at 5:07 PM Pacific, San Diego might hear a sonic boom. That sound is four people betting their lives on NASA's math being right.
Orion hits the atmosphere at 36 times the speed of sound. The air can't move out of the way fast enough, so it compresses into a shockwave twice as hot as the surface of the Sun. The plasma ionizes the surrounding air and blocks all radio signals. For several minutes, the crew is falling faster than any humans have ever traveled inside a spacecraft, and nobody on the ground can talk to them.
The heat shield is 186 blocks of a material called Avcoat glued to a titanium skeleton. It works by charring, melting, and disintegrating on purpose. The destruction of the outer layer is the cooling mechanism. There is no backup system. No redundancy. The heat shield works or the crew doesn't come home.
The Artemis I heat shield came back with over 100 locations where chunks had ripped off. NASA spent two years figuring out why, concluded it was gas pressure building up inside the material during reentry, and decided not to replace the shield. They changed the flight path instead. Steeper angle, less time in the danger zone.
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said publicly that this approach "is not the right way to do things long term."
The capsule will slow from 25,000 mph to 17 mph in thirteen minutes. Parachutes don't even deploy until the last four. Everything before that is managed by a curved piece of titanium and glue entering air twice as hot as the Sun.
Tomorrow at 5:07 PM Pacific, San Diego might hear a sonic boom. That sound is four people betting their lives on NASA's math being right.
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 139
Likes: 87
From: Montréal
The RS25 is 1960s technology but at 2020s prices. Chalk and cheese when compared to a modern generation engine like the SpaceX Raptor 3.
$145M each as compared to around $1M for a Raptor with a target of $500K. peak. 71 RS-25 engines built over 50 years whilst Raptor is production is now about 7 a week.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2026/0...5-million.html
$145M each as compared to around $1M for a Raptor with a target of $500K. peak. 71 RS-25 engines built over 50 years whilst Raptor is production is now about 7 a week.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2026/0...5-million.html
In 2027, the Raptor 4 is could reach 330+ tf or ~3.24 MN) and have further weight reductions and cost drops to less than $250,000 per engine.
Or said price should be understood per flight, with each engine reused multiple times. And the overhaul cost per flight is wayyy lower than the cost of a turboshaft overhaul...
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,679
Likes: 3,341
From: Everett, WA
The entire rational for Artemis was how cheap it was going to be because we were using "proven" technology from the Space Shuttle - yet the cost per launch of Artemis dwarfs the Saturn V (even when accounting for inflation).