Artemis Moon Program

Fell asleep halfway through and missed the splashdown but managed to get it on Sky News this morning, good to have seen that the heat shield managed to withstand the re-entry through the Earth's atmosphere and the capsule splashed down safely. Onwards to Artemis 3 and 4.
 

NASA Image and Video Library

NASA Image and Video Library, serving up consolidated imagery and videos in one searchable location. Users can download content in multiple sizes and resolutions and see the metadata associated with images, including EXIF/camera data on many images.
images.nasa.gov images.nasa.gov

Artemis III SRB Arrival
NASA ID: KSC-20260408-PH-FMX01_0004
The solid rocket booster aft skirt segments for NASA’s Artemis III SLS (Space Launch System) rocket arrive at a rail yard near the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Wednesday, April 8, 2026. Comprising the bottom of the rocket’s twin, five-segment solid rocket boosters, the aft skirt segments traveled by train in specialized transporters to the Florida spaceport and will be transferred from the rail yard to NASA Kennedy’s Rotation, Processing and Surge Facility for processing. The Artemis III mission will launch crew in the Orion spacecraft on top of the SLS rocket to test rendezvous and docking capabilities between Orion and commercial spacecraft needed to land astronauts on the Moon.
Date Created:2026-04-08
Click to expand...
 
Here's the Artemis II launch footage from NASA's WB-57F Canberra:


NASA’s SLS (Space Launch System) rocket with the Orion spacecraft carrying Artemis II Commander Reid Wiseman, Pilot Victor Glover, and Mission Specialist Christina Koch from NASA, along with Mission Specialist Jeremy Hansen from the CSA (Canadian Space Agency), lifts off at 6:35 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, April 1, 2026, from Launch Complex 39B at NASA Kennedy. The Artemis II test flight will take the crew members on a 10-day journey around the Moon and back.​
Click to expand...
This was filmed by NASA's WB-57 high altitude aircraft circling at 45000ft. I have applied color corrections, noise reduction and stabilization to the video.
Click to expand...
Credit: NASA
Processing: Simeon Schmauß
Click to expand...
Originals:
https://images.nasa.gov/details/KSC-2...https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbjVwT0VRNVJlYjNTRUs2eEtLbHRsdWRDUF91QXxBQ3Jtc0tsNXduSE9tMVE0VzVEWTVESkZoaGhHVnZUYXVrLUhiXzJNbUgwdlZzS3pIeDJoNzUxdUtBcXZqZ25OampKMDZhZWJHb05odUNlN0xSRUYtQV9aRWduM2NGcHNHalpvQUpFaTBqY09HeEdUWElsdzRQSQ&q=https://images.nasa.gov/details/KSC-20260401-MH-NAS01-0001-Artemis_II_Launch_WB57_Visible&v=pa-dMk2VnUg
https://images.nasa.gov/details/KSC-2...
Click to expand...
 
Lunar Landing missions to date

SLS - 0
SpaceX - 0
Blue Origin - 0

Funny thing, the SLS number will never change. It is incapable of sending a crew lander.
 
Byeman said:
Lunar Landing missions to date

SLS - 0
SpaceX - 0
Blue Origin - 0

Funny thing, the SLS number will never change. It is incapable of sending a crew lander.
Click to expand...
what? whats the point of the billions spent on it then?
 
Originally there was no real point other than employment in the right states and rewarding favored contractors. It’s kept going because inertia is the strongest force at NASA, and there was no one with the moxie to really shake things up. Until we got an administrator who was genuinely interested in American spaceflight everyone was happy to let the gravy train keep running.
 
Last edited:
Byeman said:
Lunar Landing missions to date

SLS - 0
SpaceX - 0
Blue Origin - 0

Funny thing, the SLS number will never change. It is incapable of sending a crew lander.
Click to expand...
And what happened, then? Well, in Whoville they say – that Byeman's small heart shrank three sizes that day.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
Originally there was no real point other than employment in the right states and rewarding favored contractors. it’s kept going, because inertia is the strongest force at NASA, and there was no one with the moxie to really shake things up. Until we got an administrator who was genuinely interested in American spaceflight everyone was happy to let the gravy train keep running.
Click to expand...
And if it were up to to you, Lori Garver, Zimmerman and anyone with "Rand" in his name--you would have killed this return.

With EUS, you COULD get a lander:

The SLS Block 1B launcher can inject 42.0-mt to Trans-Lunar Injection (TMI, C3= -2 km2/s2). Because
two of the key elements for a Lunar architecture are available and proven (SLS and Orion), a two-launch
campaign is possible in the near term. The first launch of the SLS puts a lander into a Near Rectilinear Halo
Orbit (NRHO). There the lander awaits the second SLS launch, an Orion (Fig. 30). After rendezvous in
NRHO the crew transfer to the lander and descend to the Moon. After the surface mission, the Ascent
Module (AM) ascends back to NRHO. The Orion returns to Earth. The crewed lunar lander is pictured in
Fig. 26-29. The lander is characterized by a crew of two, a stay time of 5 days, and an NTO/MMH (storable)
propellant, pump-fed engine (340-sec) propulsion system. To conserve mass, the system does not utilize an
airlock. The Descent Module (DM) carries a payload of 400-kg. Ascent payloads are the crew, EVA suits
and 40-kg of samples. DM dV includes a Lunar swingby (178-m/s), NRHO injection (251-m/s), outbound
midcourse correction (MCC) (12-m/s), rendezvous (40-m/s), NRHO departure (220-m/s), Lunar Orbit
Insertion (LOI, 500-m/s), plane change (30-m/s), Descent Orbit Initiation (DOI, 21-m/s) and descent and
hover (2010-m/s) burns. Total DM dV is 2781-m/s. AM dV includes Ascent (1850-m/s), dispersions (30-
m/s), Low Lunar Orbit (LLO) departure (650-m/s), inbound MCC (12-m/s), NRHO arrival (200-m/s),
rendezvous (40-m/s) and disposal (10-m/s). Total AM dV is 2812-m/s. Margins include 6% on main
propellant, 17% on RCS prop and 18% on dry mass. The lander (37.3-mt) can be launched with a 9.9%
launch margin (3.7-mt, Fig 26). Because of the SLS’ wide 8.4-m diam fairing, the Lander can be shorter
than landers that must fit within a narrower fairing. The throw capability and fairing of the SLS make a
two-launch campaign possible. The Ascent cabin is shown in Fig. 28.

But Ears Isaacman killed EUS in an act I consider sabotage. He flew atop Elon's dragon, so we know where his allegiances are.

FH is taking up the other shuttle pad that also should have been kept for SLS. That never should have been allowed.

What the critics of SLS don't tell you, is that they played a role in trying to kill Artemis from the start.

What SLS haters would have denied America
www.nbcnews.com

The best photos from NASA's first moon mission in more than 50 years

The Artemis II astronauts concluded their record-breaking 10-day journey on Friday with a smooth splashdown in the Pacific Ocean.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
With EUS, you COULD get a lander:
Click to expand...
Not in a single launch like Saturn V. Always needs a separate launch for the lander. The costs would be horrendous.
publiusr said:
But Ears Isaacman killed EUS in an act I consider sabotage. He flew atop Elon's dragon, so we know where his allegiances are.
Click to expand...
What you consider doesn't mean squat. Plus you are making unfounded accusations

publiusr said:
FH is taking up the other shuttle pad that also should have been kept for SLS. That never should have been allowed.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It would have gone to waste. SLS could never used it.
publiusr said:
What the critics of SLS don't tell you, is that they played a role in trying to kill Artemis from the start.
Click to expand...
That would be wrong. They openly tried.
 
Kiltonge said:
That extraction op was hideously complex and slow, so many potential failure points in the 89 minutes it took to get the crew out.
Click to expand...
Even my wife was wondering what the hell was taking so long. Should have just put a hook on top, have a CH-53 come in and carry the capsule to the ship.
 
Last edited:
Byeman said:
Talked to some people today. Everything with SLS takes longer than with Shuttle.
SLS wasn't designed for operability. Once again, Marshall f'ed up.
Click to expand...
In the 2000s / 2010s one of Ares V / SLS big selling point was how their core was to reuse Shuttle E.T tooling at Michoud and elsewhere. That External Tank production line had allowed 10 Shuttle flights in 1985 and 8 in 1996, so there was some potential there for reasonable SLS core production, perhaps 2 to 4 a year
(DIRECT has entered the chat: they calculated theoretical Jupiter cores production out of Shuttle E.T annual production history. See the discussion here - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59853.msg2540712#msg2540712 notably these specific messages
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/i...vc31600egmv&topic=59853.msg2540898#msg2540898 )

What happened instead ?
a) Boeing changed the aluminum alloy and welding method between STS tanks and SLS core, reinventing the wheel at insane cost of NASA / taxpayer money;
b) Michoud core production rate droped to 0.5 a year or 1 core every 18 months.

And this is scandalous.
 
Last edited:
Worth every penny
www.ms.now

Opinion | Artemis II cost billions of dollars. And it was worth every penny.

The Artemis II mission splashdown capped an exploration defined by the jaw-dropping “Earthset” photo and Reid Wiseman’s Carroll Crater.
www.ms.now www.ms.now

For the money-changers.... efficiency is the enemy of involvement. Dragon brought people to space. Integrity brought space to the people.

Those missions are not mutually exclusive---they are complementary.
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
And this is scandalous.
Click to expand...
This line sums up the SLS program well. At least now we have an administrator willing to replace it with commercial options, so Artemis won’t be so badly limited by high costs and limited crew access to the Moon. If we want to actually do anything on the Moon aside from flags and footprints, then we cannot afford to make the SLS the flagship rocket. It just isn’t good enough.
 
Archibald said:
In the 2000s / 2010s one of Ares V / SLS big selling point was how their core was to reuse Shuttle E.T tooling at Michoud and elsewhere. That External Tank production line had allowed 10 Shuttle flights in 1985 and 8 in 1996, so there was some potential there for reasonable SLS core production, perhaps 2 to 4 a year
(DIRECT has entered the chat: they calculated theoretical Jupiter cores production out of Shuttle E.T annual production history. See the discussion here - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59853.msg2540712#msg2540712 notably these specific messages
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/i...vc31600egmv&topic=59853.msg2540898#msg2540898 )

What happened instead ?
a) Boeing changed the aluminum alloy and welding method between STS tanks and SLS core, reinventing the wheel at insane cost of NASA / taxpayer money;
b) Michoud core production rate droped to 0.5 a year or 1 core every 18 months.

And this is scandalous.
Click to expand...
Not just production but launch ops.
The Shuttle was a more complex vehicle but 8 sets of SRBs and ET could be stacked in a year. The orbiter could be lifted and attached to the ET and the vehicle tested within a week (this would be analogous to the upper stage (ICPS). And time at the pad for payload installation and testing (1 week) would move to the VAB, which would be Orion. This was with two VAB high bays and 3 MLPs. But 4 times a year should be possible with one bay and ML (or use ML-2). So what changed?

Orion throughput would be analogous to Orbiter OPF time and making sure an Orion is available, but there are SLS core production constraints. Centaur V might have some constraints with production rate,
 
Last edited:
Here's an interview with Eugene Kranz (Amazing the he's still around as he's really getting on in years) by the WTVG station with his reactions to the Artemis II mission:


Eugene F. Kranz, the legendary NASA flight director who helped guide the Apollo program, says the newest views of the Moon and the Artemis II mission are hittin
Click to expand...
 
“Low oit’ erbit”…I am stealing that MHB’s malapropism for the name of my new band.

These days the argument is for a reduction in “standing armies,” as if supply chains and the grid didn’t have manpower.

Having a lot of guys each with eyes on one thing not only helps a sense of national investment through family stories, but just having meatware in the loop is valuable in other aspects.

I do like that SLS has more of a stage-and-a-half approach. Between that and the simple upper stage, Integity was able to thump itself to the Moon after having been given great energy.

Yes, Saturn had a true 3rd stage, which you don’t see as often. Having as much be in just one big core with only four engines means less to keep up with.

On images
spectrumlocalnews.com

RIT alumni helped train Artemis astronauts capture historic images

The images from NASA’s Artemis II mission are capturing worldwide attention. But what goes into capturing these pictures?
spectrumlocalnews.com spectrumlocalnews.com
 
Last edited:
Here's a brief WKMG News segment concerning why the Artemis II crew used a ten year old Nikon camera design instead a smartphone:


The Nikon D5’s durability and simple, familiar controls matter when astronauts must shoot fast and adjust settings manually.
Click to expand...

Details on the Nikon D5.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
Here's a brief WKMG News segment concerning why the Artemis II crew used a ten year old Nikon camera design instead a smartphone:

Details on the Nikon D5.
Click to expand...

Well the default answer is because a phone has a massively aspheric plastic lens about 2.4mm long and a tiny sensor.

They're both technically digital cameras, just like a Peu de Ciel and an F-22 are both aeroplanes.
 
LRO got those...there is a well-meaning but false comeback to Moon Hoax Believers (MHBs) where folks say Hubble can spot the Apollo 11 site. It needs to orbit the Moon to do that--LRO's job.

Recap
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf9aR3dbPtk


Artemis II excelled in showing the Lunar Farside at a distance...less magnificent desolation, more grand isolation.

What we had here, was the closest thing to the shots of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY where astronauts got to see full disks.

Much nearer....I imagine the Moon could be seen as a Vantablack wall, Sgr A* in stone.

Where all space photos are otherworldly, few are truly cosmic in every since of that word.

Apollo 15's capsule was only 8 or so miles above...low enough that it looked like a plain.

The darkness of passing behind the Moon where neither Earth nor Sun is visible. would be like falling into a so-called "bottomless pit."

The greater size of Orion, and being a four-seater probably helped with morale. Apollo 13 was much more distant in all other measures besides nautical miles.

One idea for those of you who can draw....a chart showing an overlay of Integrity over the Jupiter 2 on-screen *set*
 
Last edited:
I highly doubt it as the Moon's nearside was in the middle of the Moon's night for the nearside.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
“Low oit’ erbit”…I am stealing that MHB’s malapropism for the name of my new band.

These days the argument is for a reduction in “standing armies,” as if supply chains and the grid didn’t have manpower.

Having a lot of guys each with eyes on one thing not only helps a sense of national investment through family stories, but just having meatware in the loop is valuable in other aspects.
Click to expand...
Wrong. This line of reasoning comes from the errorious idea that spaceflight is special and different than other industries.
Every industry has its fan. No different than gear heads, railroad foamers, plane spotters, stamp collectors, etc
Spaceflight is it anything special. I does not exist to make workers and families feel good or for feel good stories. Any workplace can do it.

publiusr said:
I do like that SLS has more of a stage-and-a-half approach. Between that and the simple upper stage, Integity was able to thump itself to the Moon after having been given great energy.

Yes, Saturn had a true 3rd stage, which you don’t see as often. Having as much be in just one big core with only four engines means less to keep up with.
Click to expand...
More unsupported nonsense.
No, the stage and half with an upper stage is less efficient. And the upper stage is anemic. Two stages like Falcon 9, Atlas V and New Glenn can send payloads to high energy orbit. The stage and half doesn't exist because it is a good design, it only exists because of the use of shuttle hardware mandate. There are better ways to design an expendable rocket. SLS core is too big and inefficient and has to make up for the short burn of the SRBs. 3 stages is better than 2 1/3 and no different in complexity.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom