Tocky on 21/8/2022 at 02:48
We're going back to the moon. We never should have stopped. I recall the last mission, Apollo 17. It was so commonplace by then folks had quit watching and were complaining about the coverage cutting into their soaps and other worthless programs. Not me. I watched from my hospital bed. I had a cyst nodule come up in a lymph node that they had to cut off the side of my jaw so I laid in bed and watched it start to finish. And on some pretty decent drugs too.
I love the space program. We've got to get out of this place... if it's the last thing we ever dooooooo. We belong in the stars. Don't you feel that? We need to populate the universe. Okay, maybe not the anti vaxxers, but those who understand science. And if we die out before we can then it's still a noble undertaking. We went down swinging. And the next swing is Artemis. The new SLS Orion engine puts out 8.8 million pounds of thrust. That's 15% more than the Saturn V. The earth is going to shake people. And I'm going to be there.
We are heading down to Cape Canaveral by way of highways 95 then 1 along the coast of Georgia from Savannah. There are a couple of light houses along the way we might see before we stop at New Smyrna beach. And then it's the anticipation oh god the anticipation till about three in the morning when we wake up and shower to drive down to Playalinda beach. We have a foldable beach wagon, not unlike the moon buggy, we are going to deploy filled with sunscreen, umbrellas, water and soda on ice, some snacks, folding chairs, and the like to drag .9 miles down the sand to the fence which is the closest viewing point. Closer than the stands at the space center or observation gantry. If any crackhead tries to rob us in that distance I will gut them like a fish and hide their body in the marsh. I will see this launch. It may be the only one I get to see.
Artemis one. It will be unmanned. It will go around the moon just to test the systems. That's okay. At least if it blows up I won't see anyone die. With manned missions there is always the possibility. Good and true and noble men and women have died to further the cause of science. They knew how important it was. They are true heroes. It will go forward. WE will go forward as a species even if it does blow up on the pad. We will learn and push and nothing will stop us. We will land on the moon. Again. We will use it as a stepping stone to Mars. I may not see it but most of you will. I already envy you. We have to go all the way. I don't give a shit if it's at the cost of our DNA, we have to one day see the stars as... something... Waterbear/human hybrid I don't care. We have to. We must have the universe. We must understand it all. We must see the last light wink out in the cold dead final entropy. We must know. I don't give a shit why and you can't tell me we can't.
I will feel the air pressure change. I will hear the roar. I will see the sand shake the footprints level. WE ARE GOING.
Pyrian on 21/8/2022 at 07:08
Awesome! Enjoy.
I want humanity to go to the stars, but I'm not convinced now is the right time, honestly. We need resource extraction and industry on the Moon and then Mars - preferably self-sustaining, or at least mostly self-sustaining. (E.g. making advanced chips locally might be a bridge too far, but at least those can be imported at relatively low weight and last a long time.) I think that would be done more efficiently, robotically.
Cipheron on 21/8/2022 at 09:34
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Awesome! Enjoy.
I want humanity to go to the stars, but I'm not convinced now is the right time, honestly. We need resource extraction and industry on the Moon and then Mars - preferably self-sustaining, or at least mostly self-sustaining. (E.g. making advanced chips locally might be a bridge too far, but at least those can be imported at relatively low weight and last a long time.) I think that would be done more efficiently, robotically.
A good goal would be a lunar space elevator. The engineering for that is much more trivial than an Earth based space elevator.
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator)
You need a large counterweight above the stationary point for the elevator, relative to the mass of the cable+payload, but those could be anything you like, such as habitats, space docks, engineering, solar collectors. etc.
"to the stars" is clearly pie in the sky if you don't have engineering capacity in space already.
Tocky on 21/8/2022 at 16:08
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Awesome! Enjoy.
I want humanity to go to the stars, but I'm not convinced now is the right time, honestly. We need resource extraction and industry on the Moon and then Mars - preferably self-sustaining, or at least mostly self-sustaining. (E.g. making advanced chips locally might be a bridge too far, but at least those can be imported at relatively low weight and last a long time.) I think that would be done more efficiently, robotically.
"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; there is where they should be. Now put foundations under them."- Thoreau. This is but one of many stones. Our detour was the shuttle missions to advance communications, GPS, and weather forecast. That was the logical infrastructure advancement needed then. This foray is a testing for further missions with other testing. It isn't just going to the moon. There is always boundary pushing and learning (also learning the effects on our new chip tech). For what you said to come to pass this must happen first. I'm happy to see it now. I want it continuous.
That elevator from the moon seems a much more logical one than from the earth. Less gravity and no air pressure so not the wear and tear as well. Too bad our moon is not geosynchronous like Charon is with Pluto. But then we wouldn't have the tides and I'm not sure what no shifting pull against the crust would change. Anyway, there is no power to change it so we have to work with what we have.
Edit: Am I wrong in thinking electromagnetism loss and loss of atmosphere with a geosynchronous moon?
Aged Raver on 21/8/2022 at 16:58
> … If any crackhead tries to rob us in that distance I will gut them like a fish and hide their body in the marsh. I will see this launch.
HaHa. I hope it goes really well. Sounds like you have a very good plan. :thumb:
In the Summer of ‘69 I was working in Manhattan and a couple of us went down town (it must have been a Saturday) to see the ticker-tape welcome home for the first Moon astronauts. We got there really early and took spots as close as we could get to a platform where they were going to be. Soon, others came along behind and around us and pretty soon we could hardly move. As always there were a few loudmouths who pushed and shouted as though they owned the place, but we were OK, we were right at the front. Nobody could get in front of us. :tsktsk: Unfortunately we didn’t anticipate a load of TV crews who arrived somewhat late, casually wheeling several pieces of tall equipment which they set up on the other side of the barriers, indifferent to lots of angry shouting from the crowd. Not only couldn’t we move, we couldn’t see a thing either.:D
Edit: Your post and enthusiasm got me reading. According to Wikipedia there may even be a crew of sorts ... ‘Artemis I will carry a mannequin, "Captain Moonikin Campos" (named after Arturo Campos, an engineer who played a major role in resolving the emergency that occurred during the Apollo 13 mission), alongside NASA's Snoopy and ESA's Shaun the Sheep.’
Nameless Voice on 21/8/2022 at 17:38
I would have named the thread "WE'RE GOIN' BACK"
[video=youtube;npF_VHtvHpw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npF_VHtvHpw[/video]
Cipheron on 22/8/2022 at 07:32
Quote Posted by Tocky
Too bad our moon is not geosynchronous like Charon is with Pluto. But then we wouldn't have the tides and I'm not sure what no shifting pull against the crust would change. Anyway, there is no power to change it so we have to work with what we have.
Edit: Am I wrong in thinking electromagnetism loss and loss of atmosphere with a geosynchronous moon?
How you're thinking of it would be dwarfed by how much closer the moon would need to be for that to happen.
"Geosynchronous" is a set height: 35,786 kilometers above the surface. Things don't get to orbit slow or fast, they always orbit at a set speed depending on how far away they are (mostly based on the mass of the Earth).
So the moon would be 10 times closer and 100 times the size in the sky, and be above one location on Earth. So *intense* solar eclipses there every lunch time, and 100 times the moonlight at night. The moon's gravitational pull would also be 100 times as strong (inverse square law) so yeah, whichever location was lucky enough to get the moon would be underwater.
Tocky on 23/8/2022 at 15:39
Ah. I was not aware that geosynchronous had a distance/mass component but now that you say so it makes sense. We can't change either anyway. Having said that, it does seem such a fragile dance of so many things that came together to make and support life, much less us. It would be a shame to not try and spread this happenstance elsewhere.
I would have said "going back" except then the phrase wouldn't have pulled double duty with my wife and I also "going". I've never been, never seen a rocket launch, and I've always wanted to. As it is it has to be sandwiched between finding out my mother in laws biopsy results and being home to take care of my daughters' animals while she takes her husband to a Braves game. Also the weather has to hold out. It has a 62 % chance of rain. Not sure if it matters depending on how much. The backup dates of Sept. 2nd and 5th are problematic. I absolutely cannot make the 5th.
There are estimated to be one hundred thousand people going and I want to be one of them. I can't wait another three years till Artemis 2 & 3. Although I might go for those too. If it is scrubbed this time I'm going nuts. But "best laid plans" eh Aged Raver?
Nice song Nameless, the words fit how I feel, but this is my energy right now-
[video=youtube_share;XtRrbH8crUs]https://youtu.be/XtRrbH8crUs[/video]
Not the best sound quality but the only one I could find where I actually was there.
ZylonBane on 23/8/2022 at 16:30
Quote Posted by Cipheron
So the moon would be 10 times closer and 100 times the size in the sky, and be above one location on Earth.
Being over the same spot all day would be a
geostationary orbit.
Cipheron on 23/8/2022 at 21:18
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Being over the same spot all day would be a
geostationary orbit.
Yeah, you're right sorry. It could be for example. a polar orbit, I was just thinking of equatorial orbits.
However, when Tocky originally said "geosynchronous" he probably did mean "geostationary" in context: i.e. the whole benefit is supposed to be that the moon is stationary relative to some place on the surface. Which does mean both geosynchronous and orbiting exactly on the equator.