Artemis 2 launch

[OxygenMask]

Until the shuttle launches became commonplace I never missed watching a launch, got to see a nighttime launch in person once, that was incredible.
In 68 when it all started I was 9, so I really mean all the launches
As a little kid I had models of all the rockets and capsules, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, lunar landers etc.

Sponsored

 

[superj]

that is kind of cool. you have actually seen every one. thats not something many people can say, i bet

 

[White willy]

Until the shuttle launches became commonplace I never missed watching a launch, got to see a nighttime launch in person once, that was incredible.
In 68 when it all started I was 9, so I really mean all the launches
As a little kid I had models of all the rockets and capsules, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, lunar landers etc.

Same,born in ‘64,I never missed a launch or any of the excitement.
Had a great uncle that worked at the Cape,and we used to get behind the scenes to check out everything,I was,and still am,always amazed and facinated by it all.
That what really led me to get into aviation,and things mechanical and technical.
The innovations and creation that have been developed to facilitate these achievements are nothing short of spectacular.
So much of today’s technology is just casually taken for granted,and just accepted as the way it is.
Hats off to the creative minds that still think out side of the box,and dare to dream on another level!

 

[Aero98]

And the mind-blowing photos are coming in from yesterday's flyby! Stunning! Must be unreal to see them with your own eyes!

 

[White willy]

It would be amazing to see from their perspective for sure!!
Something I would do in a heartbeat if given the opportunity.
Not like that Katy p chick either

 

[superj]

most of hte things we have as humans is amazing when you think of how it came about. i am always in awe of the people who thought of all the things we use. i would never have thought of using electricity for anything or engines, vulcanizing rubber, adding a zipper to your pants, pasteurizing, fridges, ac, driving in a car, any of that. i would have been happy just living life so i am always grateful for the people who were ahead of me and wondered about things and then figured stuff out. combustion engines, turbine engines, barrel engines, transmissions!! somebody wayyyyyyy smarter than i

 

[Aero98]

Go here to see all that's been published so far: https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-ii-multimedia/

 

[AlloyPony]

It's the 1960s. We don't even have the tech to make 8-bit video games yet. Cars mostly don't have air conditioning yet. People hang their clothes on lines to dry them and shovel coal into fireplaces to stay warm in winter.

And you're telling me that in that era, we put men into a tin can, launched it through the all the layers of the atmosphere and through the ionosphere into space, flew them nearly a quarter-million miles on one fuel fill, in a perfect trajectory to reach the moon which is a blip in the grand scheme of the universe, landed them on the moon without crashing, drove a car around on the moon for fun, stuck a flag in it, sent high-res video nearly a quarter million miles back to Earth from the moon, made a phone call to the President who was on a land-line phone, then got back into the tin can and launched from the moon without crashing, flew nearly a quarter-million miles back to Earth in another perfect trajectory, on the SAME fuel fill, and safely landed in the ocean?

And then we couldn't do it again in the next four decades, and I personally watched not one, but TWO space shuttles explode and blow up before they even made it beyond the troposphere because of the extreme difficulty of the mission and lack of technology?

And now in the 2020s we finally have enough tech to at least fly AROUND the moon? And we're HOPING that maybe by the 2030s we can land on it? Maybe?

But we did all of this with ease 57 years ago?

G T F O H

I've spent my life studying the atmosphere and I'm amazed by the moon and stars, but I'm also realistic and I'm well aware of government corruption, especially during the Cold War.

 

[Jason B]

It's the 1960s. We don't even have the tech to make 8-bit video games yet. Cars mostly don't have air conditioning yet. People hang their clothes on lines to dry them and shovel coal into fireplaces to stay warm in winter.

And you're telling me that in that era, we put men into a tin can, launched it through the all the layers of the atmosphere and through the ionosphere into space, flew them nearly a quarter-million miles on one fuel fill, in a perfect trajectory to reach the moon which is a blip in the grand scheme of the universe, landed them on the moon without crashing, drove a car around on the moon for fun, stuck a flag in it, sent high-res video nearly a quarter million miles back to Earth from the moon, made a phone call to the President who was on a land-line phone, then got back into the tin can and launched from the moon without crashing, flew nearly a quarter-million miles back to Earth in another perfect trajectory, on the SAME fuel fill, and safely landed in the ocean?

And then we couldn't do it again in the next four decades, and I personally watched not one, but TWO space shuttles explode and blow up before they even made it beyond the troposphere because of the extreme difficulty of the mission and lack of technology?

And now in the 2020s we finally have enough tech to at least fly AROUND the moon? And we're HOPING that maybe by the 2030s we can land on it? Maybe?

But we did all of this with ease 57 years ago?

G T F O H

I've spend my life studying the atmosphere and I'm amazed by the moon and stars, but I'm also realistic and I'm well aware of government corruption, especially during the Cold War.

If you were realistic, you would do research to prove the moon landing was real, not research to prove it was faked.

We didn't go back, because we didn't need to. There are some political sides to it, now that China says they want to land humans on the moon.

Computers were a thing in the 60s, home computers and gaming were not.
The corporate and industrial sector have computers today that are much more powerful than any home PC. You can get one of those, for several hundred dollars.

 

[NM Mike]

Funny thing is we have more computing power in our cell phones than what NASA had during the mercury and gemini missions. All the calculations were made on these original computers, but there were teams of people with slide rulers double, triple and quadruple checking every calculation.
I wonder if anyone even knows how to use a slide rule anymore?

 

[saf1]

I wonder if anyone even knows how to use a slide rule anymore?

Used to be taught in school along with protractors and compasses. Also had industrial electives but we know how that turned out.

 

[superj]

and one of those shuttles blew up from a bad o-ring, not from computer technology. they used hte wrong material and it caused a leak with lost the challenger, if i remember right. the other one, i cannot remember what happened to but i know the one that came apart on reentry was from missing heat shields and damage caused during lift off.

 

[Aero98]

There are 3 things I generally tell non-believers of the moon landings:

1. You are free to believe what you want. But consider all the data and not just the "inconsistencies" that "prove" your disbelief.

2. Yes, the moon landings were a filmed in a studio...however, Stanley Kubrick was such an intense director that he insisted it be filmed on location!

3. The Russians would have called us out on any non-truths in the pursuit of the moon landings. They never did that despite failures in their own program that prevented them from completing the achievement.

 

[Aero98]

and one of those shuttles blew up from a bad o-ring, not from computer technology. they used hte wrong material and it caused a leak with lost the challenger, if i remember right. the other one, i cannot remember what happened to but i know the one that came apart on reentry was from missing heat shields and damage caused during lift off.

Correct: Challenger had issues with an o-ring at temperatures below recommended flight. The o-ring failed allowing hot gas to impinge on the fuel tank which then exploded. "Go-fever" was a contributing factor on this one as some engineers recommended a no-go for launch that day.

Columbia was lost during re-entry due to a hole in the left wing caused by a briefcase sized block of foam that shed from the external tank. "Normalization of deviance" was a contributing factor in that accident because shedding foam occurred on almost all flights previous flights and folks dismissed it since no catastrophic events had occurred to that point.

 

[Dino Jockey]

Coming home soon…. 25k mph.. fast. But u know that already especially if u have a Raptor!!!

Sponsored