Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "" video.

  1.  @markjob6354  1/ This isn't architecture, this is rocketry. 2. The core stage uses self-reacting friction-stir welding process which guarantees good quality joint without any defects, improved mechanical properties, reduced residual stresses and less distortion. 3. It is a chemical heavy lift rocket based upon known, tested, upgraded and repurposed technologies. 4. Actually, given the launch cadence it can cost more on recovery than booster reusability. 5. See above. Reusable rockets also compromise the payload. It doesn't need to reach 'the moon and back'. What you see is a heavy lift capability designed to place ICPS/Orion in low earth orbit prior to TLI. I assure you that Artemis I will reach the moon and back. The jury is out on its long term viability and as you allude to, sustainability.
    3
  2. From orbital inclinations of 30 degrees and above launched in a north east direction? You're not that bright are you.
    3
  3. "Answer anyone!!" And if I furnish you with one - will you listen? The VABs (note, there are two, with a transient third) are acknowledged by astrophysicists and James Van Allen himself as being no barrier to manned transit. You are choosing to rely on a deceptive piece of quote mining popularly parroted by conspiracy believers and based upon a dishonestly appropriated few sentences extracted from an interview with NASA engineer Kelly Smith. You can find the entire video and all of its context under 'Orion: Trial By Fire'. Said engineer, presenting a video about the then upcoming first unmanned test flight of the new Orion spacecraft said that the challenges of the space radiation environment had to be solved for the new design. The new craft for Project Artemis, Orion, utilises onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than the core rope systems their Apollo-era counterparts and it is designed for missions of longer distance and duration. The Apollo Guidance Computer used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation resistant. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionization tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. In 2014 Orion was deliberately sent into the more intense inner belt to test these to great success. The VABs posed no problems to the Apollo astronauts in 1969. In the most intense part of the Van Allen belts that Orion was sent, one would have to stay there six days to receive a lethal dose of 300Rads. By using a carefully planned trajectory and speed, the Apollo astronauts passed through the outer less dense fringes in one hour receiving a measured dose of about 0.9Rads.The VAB consists mainly of low energy particles, easily stopped by the spacecraft's hull at these trajectories. The Command Module's Inner Hull varied in thickness from 0.25 inches to 1.5 inches of aluminium alloy. The Outer Hull vairied from 0.5 inches to 2.5 inches in thickness of steel. Between the two hulls was a layer of fibrous thermal insulation. When it comes to alpha and beta shielding, the primary focus should be placed on density and not thickness. Alpha particles can be easily blocked by plastic or even a piece of paper.
    2
  4. It really doesn't work like that.
    2
  5. You understand countdown holds and launch window availability right?
    2
  6. The problem owed to managerial failure and a decision to launch against advice from Morton Thiokoln in conditions that compromised the o-rings between rocket sections.
    2
  7. Whilst chemical rockets remain the only viable way to launch payloads into orbit, the use of the current tried and tested technology - repurposed and upgraded makes a lot of sense.
    2
  8. In respect of the shuttle, it varied. Early missions used two firings of the OMS to achieve orbit; the first firing raised the apogee while the second circularized the orbit. Missions after STS-38 used the RS-25 engines to achieve the optimal apogee, and subsequently used the OMS engines to circularize the orbit. The The core stage is designed to operate for approximately 8.3 minutes, reaching nearly Mach 23 and more than 530,000 feet in altitude - just over 100 miles - in altitude at MECO.
    2
  9. Nine times and six landings - which wasn't enough. Over half a century later, it's really important that we go back.
    2
  10.  @sportsfix6975  Your comment was shadow banned. I'd like to say that this is down to sheer ignorance of your post, but unfortunately, it is an entirely random process. Nonetheless, I feel obliged to highlight such stratospheric levels of stupidity.... "haha, Bermuda is where they go" And in over half a century, no one has noticed. Not one person. Good luck with an orbital inclination of 57° - what do they do turn around and come back again? Wait, you have no idea what that means have you? I thought you said Antarctica? - make your mind up. "another CGI picture of a planet anyone?" In the 1960s? Righto then. "Or how about the president talking to Armstrong on the phone LIVE during the fake moon landing?" You mean that call from the White House to Houston which was sent via microwave link to the Deep Space Network, through a DSN station via S-band? You won't understand that either. Never mind. Moving on... "It's all B.S.....you don't have to be bright to see that." You have to be very dim to think it is, and you're certainly over qualified in that department.
    2
  11.  @dataman1000  Because Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo and Artemis does not have the same mission objectives either. You'll notice that there are mannequins in the crew capsule. They are wearing the first-generation Orion Crew Survival System suit – a spacesuit astronauts will wear during launch, entry, and other dynamic phases of their missions. These are fitted with sensors to record Gs and acceleration. Engineers will compare Artemis I flight data with previous ground-based vibration tests with the same manikin, and human subjects, to correlate performance. Accelerometers inside Orion will provide data for comparing vibration and acceleration between the upper and lower seats. It also evaluates the integration of the newly designed systems with an energy dampening system that the seats are mounted on. In terms of radiation, as I mentioned, Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo designed for longer duration and distance The longest Apollo mission was Apollo 17 at 12 days - Artemis 1 is 42 days in comparison and unlike Apollo reaches an apogee around the moon of 40,000 miles. One of the mannequins is testing a new radiation shielding vest, called the astrorad. Also the mission coincides with peak solar activity which is a tremendous opportunity to gain more data in respect of the crew cabin and its systems. Orion utilises onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts and it is designed for missions of longer distance and duration. The Apollo Guidance Computer used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation resistant. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionization tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. Un 2014 Orion was deliberately sent into the more intense inner belt to test these.
    2
  12. "This video hasn't aged well." Your asinine comment certainly hasn't
    1
  13. No, the one that just did.
    1
  14. Disagree entirely. Decades have been spent sending manned missions into low earth orbit. The microgravity of space allows astronauts to carry out experiments that would not be possible in the gravity of Earth for such prolonged periods. This helps advance materials science because it allows different processes to be engineered in terms of crystal growth, fluid mixing, separation between gases and liquids, heat transfer, solidification and combustion. From this we can better understand thermophysical properties, develop new/novel products and processes and examine morphological microstructures and granular matter. This has also benefitted our understanding of fundamental physics (complex plasma/dust particle/aerosol physics/motion, frictional interaction, plasma physics and aggregation phenomena). Biological research has encompassed plant physiology, statolith movement, gravitropism & gravireceptors, cell and development biology, electrophysiological and morphological properties of human cells and in terms of the latter the human research has been extensive including such examples of; integrated physiology, cardiovascular/respiratory function, body fluid shift, muscular and bone physiology, blood lactate, neuroscience, and vestibular function. Then there are the natural resources. Lunar resources encompass solar power potential, oxygen, and abundant elements including, among others, hydrogen , oxygen, silicon, iron, magnesium, calcium, aluminium, manganese and titanium. Also, non-radioactive helium-3 from the moon may one day power nuclear fusion reactors. Water can also be found in the poles. Beyond our near neighbour, measurements by rovers and satellites at Mars have also indicated massive amounts of water in the form of ice beneath and within the regolith. Mineral resources are in abundance as well, including iron, titanium, nickel, aluminum, sulfur, chlorine and calcium. Asteroids could also be plentiful and inexhaustible sources of oxygen and water - consumables for life support and materials and a rich diversity of rare, valuable and abundant metals to be mined. However, at the risk or creating the next Klondike or wild west (we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the Earth’s colonial past), now is the time to put in place safeguards to protect the rest of the Solar System from the kind of gross mismanagement witnessed on Earth in the name of science and exploration, but these extra-terrestrial resources are so bountiful that such extraction would also be sustainable. And lastly, there is the fact that exploration is fundamental to humankind. Commander of Apollo 17 and the last man on the moon Eugen Cernan: "Here I am at the turn of the millennium and I'm still the last man to have walked on the moon, somewhat disappointing. It says more about what we have not done than about what we have done." "I think America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership in the world, to explore, to seek knowledge." "I'm quite disappointed that I'm still the last man on the moon. It's our destiny to explore. It's the destiny of humanity to be space-faring". "I know the stars are my home. I learned about them, needed them for survival in terms of navigation. I know where I am when I look up at the sky. I know where I am when I look up at the Moon; it's not just some abstract romantic idea, it's something very real to me. See, I've expanded my home." "Curiosity is the essence of our existence". Nature could consign us to a fossil record overnight. It is imperative that we learn how to get off this rock and colonise space.
    1
  15.  @bhangrafan4480  "but manned missions in Earth orbit have little to do with sending people to the Moon." Manned missions in LEO yielded enormous quantities of data in respect of the physiological effects of long-duration space flights. This is not only pertinent to habitation/colonisation of the moon but beyond that Mars and deep space exploration. As I said, it is essential that we learn to get off this rock. "Second paragraph not only am I totally sceptical about resources on the Moon, but the energy needed to be invested to exploit them makes this a very expensive and economically unviable source, till humans find some way to radically reduce the cost of energy. We are talking about science fiction energy sources here, nothing in the foreseeable future. The moon is just a big, dry lump of basalt, I doubt there are many material resources there in concentrations." The moon is actually an excellent source of building materials, water, fuel, oxygen and other useful resources but some of these are highly localised while others need to be processed before they can be utilised. While lunar regolith suitable for construction is found all over the surface, ice that can be used to produce fuel, oxygen and liquid water is only found in permanent shade such as in craters or at the poles. There are abundant resources that could support thriving moon bases for decades and allow for the development of a lucrative lunar economy. Helium-3 is one lunar resource that is rare on earth but much more abundant on the lunar surface and could potentially be cheaper to mine from the moon. Helium-3 is a very attractive fuel for future nuclear fusion reactors. China, Russia and India have all expressed interest in sourcing lunar Helium-3 for use on earth. This would require huge innovation in mining industry technology to develop suitable remote techniques, not to mention the development of economically viable fusion reactors, but the return on investment would be massive if a commercial Helium-3 reactor were ever built. Other scarce materials have also been discovered include precious metals such as platinum, palladium and rhodium which are highly conductive and could be used in electronics. In addition to that, tiitanium ore, 10 times richer than that found on Earth. When mixed with aluminum or iron, titanium makes an alloy that is lightweight, corrosion-resistant, incredibly strong and resistant to extreme temperatures. It could be used to build a variety of items, such as engines, medical implants and structural frames. There are 17 rare metals that are scant to find on earth but may be abundant on the moon. These moon metals include scandium, ytttrium and others, which could be used in vehicle engines, to make glass or ceramics, electronic devices, radar systems, superconductors and more. "Colonising space is exactly the kind of project that could wait another 100 years while we sort out what we have on the Earth better. If the Earth goes down the tubes it would have taken many centuries before humans are ready to move to anywhere else. My concern is with the short to medium time frame, say the next 10 - 50 years. Realistically we are stuck on Earth for the foreseeable future and we cannot afford to mess it up any more than we already have." We may not have the luxury of being afforded a hundred year wait.
    1
  16. NASA has never lost telemetry.
    1
  17. Tell that to the half a million people on the Florida coastline and the tens of thousands gathered near the Cape that witness it launch.
    1
  18. What do you mean full ballast? The only difference is the lack of life support.
    1
  19. Starship will use liquid oxygen plus liquid methane whilst alongside RP-1, Falcon Heavy uses LOX too.
    1
  20.  @berfunkle4588  No, there is a contract in place with Aerojet Rocketdyne.
    1
  21.  @sylfa11 Launch hardware? Very effective technology.
    1
  22. Apollo coincided with the 11 year peak. The solar storm of August 1972 is legendary at NASA because it occurred in between two Apollo missions: the crew of Apollo 16 had returned to Earth in April and the crew of Apollo 17 was preparing for a moon landing in December.
    1
  23. And what do you do?
    1
  24.  @markjob6354  This is a heavy lift rocket designed to place ICPS/Orion into orbit. Also the SLS is being developed in three major phases with increasing capabilities. Block 2 crew and cargo will be capable of 9.5m lbs of thrust whilst the latter is designed to despatch more than 46 t (101,400 lbs.) to deep space. Space X have Mars in their sights, and aim to do so using Dragon. Orion meanwhile is designed for deep space exploration.
    1
  25. 1/ By placing Isaac Newton in the driving seat. 2/ Space is very large.
    1
  26. Because at staging the core stage is travelling at 17,000 mph and over 100 miles in altitude. Having no heat shield to protect it, it burns up as it reenters the atmosphere - just as the space shuttle external fuel tank did.
    1
  27.  @Swimfinz  This again? Really?
    1
  28.  @KaotikKrow  You didn't answer the question. Today, they couldn't achieve the required chilldown temperature on engine 3. During testing at Stennis, they encountered the same issue with two engines, but found that closing the vent cap on the core stage forced the bleed. I gather today, engineers attempted something similar on the problematic engine by isolating the other three. It was to be expected really. This is the first time run this chilldown procedure has been performed with the current ground launch configuration at Kennedy. Engineers weren't able to do this during the WDR in June due to being preoccupied with a hydrogen leak. The hold a t-40 was very unusual and indicated a problem that likely wasn't going to be resolved before the launch window closed.
    1
  29.  @KaotikKrow  Which necessitated a countdown hold and they lost the launch window. Being 'kept waiting' isn't unusual in rocket launches, nor are scrubs. Particularly given a first test flight of one so complex. Regarding the 'bleed' - in all honesty, did you genuinely understand what that meant?
    1
  30. Why? - because of the 737 Max? Boeing manufactured the Saturn V S-IC which had no failures. Actually, the core stage of the SLS is built at the same repurposed plant.
    1
  31. Incorrect. That was Eugene Cernan. Schmitt is the last living person to have walked on the moon. I take your point though.
    1
  32. Nature could consign us to a fossil record overnight. It is vital for the survival of mankind that we explore ways to colonise space.
    1
  33.  @k.chriscaldwell4141  Absolute arrant nonsense.
    1
  34. Clearly you don't understand what caused the Challenger disaster.
    1
  35.  @Fatpumpumlovah2  That's a very strange and frankly rather disturbing state of mind you have there.
    1
  36. All those branches of science, the associated specialist fields such as aeronautical and propulsion engineering, orbital mechanics and petrology to name a few, every astrophysicist on the planet and every space agency in existence together with the nations that tracked Apollo to the moon; When are you planning to inform them of this - only, it seems to have passed them by? When you do, don't forget to tell them that the University of You Tube sent you.
    1
  37.  @szponiasty  This again? Are you asking because you are interested in a reply, or simply because you like to parrot junk online conspiracy theory. Data and video appears to have been conflated by believers in the moon landing conspiracy theory. NASA searched for but could not locate some of the original Apollo 11 data tapes – “original” in the sense that they directly recorded data transmitted from the Moon. An intensive search of archives and records concluded that the most likely scenario was that the program managers determined there was no longer a need to keep the tapes, since all the video and data were recorded elsewhere and they were erased and reused. The data on those tapes, including video data, were relayed to the Manned Spacecraft Center (now the Johnson Space Center), during the mission. The video was recorded there and in other locations; there is no missing video footage whatsoever from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. The search also discovered high-quality broadcast versions of the footage. NASA worked with Lowry Digital, a premier film restoration company, to process the video using techniques unavailable in 1969. The restored video was released in HD as part of the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11. You do realise there were a further five moon landings yes?
    1
  38. Unlike the shuttle, the boosters are not recovered. In terms of the core stage the RS-25 engines once all used up will be manufactured by Aerojet Rocketdyne. The capsule is not flown again, but much of the internals are.
    1
  39. Sure about that?
    1
  40. So does your hat.
    1
  41.  @mrblack888  Unfortunately, that's the nature of spaceflight and developing a heavy lift capability is indeed ludicrously expensive which is why man last set foot on the moon half a century ago. In view of that, it makes sense to go with repurposed, tried and tested technology.
    1
  42. F1 power!
    1
  43. ? They are recovering it.
    1
  44. Boeing manufactured the Saturn V SI-C which never failed. They have produced the core stage of the SLS at the same plant/facility.
    1
  45.  @wouldntyouliketoknow9891  I do like your Republican analogy and I'm not convinced that the merger with McDonnell Douglas was necessarily a positive in terms of operational culture, but Boeing have in many ways rewritten the book in the design of the core stage of the SLS. This is not to overlook the schedule issues which stem primarily from management, technical, and infrastructure issues directly related to Boeing’s performance. It would be interesting to know if such systemic failures are a consequence of a company wide malaise afflicting all divisions or the organisation.
    1
  46. The RS-25 engines are amongst the most tried and tested rockets on the planet. The SRBs are revised and upgraded. And what do you mean by too complicated? The strength lies in the familiarity of the design.
    1
  47. You mean the PDU? It's nothing to do with a 'bad design'. The fault occurred after mating of the Crew and Service Modules. The risks of damaging the spacecraft during the PDU repair outweighed any loss of data should the unit completely malfunction.This is due to the limited accessibility to the unit following mating, the degree of intrusiveness to the overall spacecraft systems, and other variables which meant the risk of collateral damage outweighed the risk associated with the loss of one leg of redundancy in a highly redundant system. The overall power and data system has been subjected to thousands of hours of powered operations and testing. The PDU is operational and functional - one of two redundant channels in one of two communications cards in that PDU is not working.
    1
  48.  @FARLANDER762  You mean accessed. Unfortunately once the two modules are mated, depending upon the issue, the risk of collateral damage can outweigh the risk associated with the loss of one leg of redundancy in a highly redundant system. In other words, one rather small inaccessible and inconsequential box isn't worth dismantling the upper stage for.
    1
  49. No, a $3.5 billion contract was been agreed with Aerojet Rocketdyne in 2020.
    1
  50.  @baaldiablo8459  Seriously, grow up or take your conspiratorial nonsense elsewhere. You'll get short shrift here.
    1
  51. No it isn't. The ablative heatshield is on the underside of the capsule whilst the drogue and main parachutes are in the nose.
    1
  52.  @cogentdynamics  Well ablative heat shields work, so does the abort system - so what's your point? Your post is a bit like saying that the RS-25s are bell shaped so haven't moved on from Gemini Titan II 'tech'.
    1
  53. It is the fuel that concentrates the most energy. Regarding reliability, the RS-25s are the most tested engines in history.
    1
  54. No it really isn't. That's careless to think so.
    1
  55. And that boldness nearly ended in disaster - they were very lucky with Apollo 12, whilst the Challenger catastrophe is testimony to the dangers of not heeding nature.
    1
  56. You are averse to a Scottish accent then?
    1
  57.  @daviddesrosiers1946  David Desrosiers
    1
  58.  @sportsfix6975  Known science is not a question of beliefs - that would be the junk online conspiracy theory that you parrot - and at no stage have I mentioned mine.
    1
  59.  @sportsfix6975  If the science is known, it's not a question of belief is it? It is axiomatic and demonstrable with a voice of its own. The other commentator on this thread was right, you really aren't that bright are you?
    1
  60.  @sportsfix6975  Nothing to do with belief and nothing to do with me. Keep on trolling.
    1
  61.  @sportsfix6975  I'm in complete agreement with this video and the science behind it. How can I possibly be trolling it? Clever lad.
    1
  62.  @steveaustin2686  The artistic renditions of the 'Lunar Starship' indicate a very tall vehicle resembling the fanciful artwork of 1930s and 40s science fiction. Mindful of the angle that Apollo 15 set down this seems a very perilous design.
    1
  63.  @steveaustin2686  "Lunar Starship will also have a greater propellant margin, so won't have to set down so far." Not with you.
    1
  64.  @steveaustin2686  That's what I thought you meant. Thanks for the clarification. Nonetheless, the craft does look perilously tall. I expected a squatter, wider design.
    1
  65. Why's that?
    1
  66.  @dataman1000  Read my reply again. Because as I explained Orion is a completely different craft and is designed for missions of longer duration and distance. It is also gathering a range of different data to Apollo and has more sophisticated ways of doing this. As opposed to a six day mission, Artemis 1 is six weeks and will achieve an orbital apogee of 40,000 miles around the moon which is the furthest that a spacecraft designed for manned missions has ever been from earth.
    1
  67.  @dataman1000  I have explained the next generation space suit to you, the use of accelerometers for launch and reentry and the astrovest. To clarify again, Orion is designed for totally different missions to Apollo of far greater duration and distance, Artemis 1 is six weeks as opposed to six - seven days of Apollo which means more data can be collected from an apogee of 40,000 miles coinciding with a peak in the solar cycle. It also utilises completely different systems to Apollo. Simply because you "don't get" something doesn't make it suspicious. Your incredulity has no bearing upon reality. If you wish to believe that Apollo never went to the moon because you can't comprehend the wealth of data that Artemis I will yield, than that is entirely your prerogative. But simply because something doesn't make sense to you, is not the same as it isn't true.
    1
  68. You only need to make the one comment. You can consolidate them into one post you know.
    1
  69. But nature can consign humanity to a fossil record overnight meaning we need to to develop the tools to get off this rock.
    1
  70. Longer than that. If all goes well I would expect Artemis II to launch in two years time.
    1
  71. Great question. I have been searching for this to no avail. I'm assuming similar to the Saturn V which I think was a 32 degree parking orbit inclination. Apollo could be placed into orbit using launch directions 18º either side of due east so could therefore be launched on azimuths anywhere between 72º and 108º east of north. I'm assuming that this is no different, in which case the trajectory would pass over North Africa. I think the Apollo 11 launch trajectory passed over the coast of Western Sahara.
    1