Did you notice there was no video from inside the crew capsule?

I mean, wth?

I was surprised in general that the entire launch didn't seem much different than what I watched 50 years ago. Everything from the craft - which we admittedly never even had before - was glitchy and not very interesting. Ground-based video was wobbly and frankly seemed worse than I remembered. Compare the coverage of a modern football game to what we had 50 years ago. The improvement is stunning. I was expecting more.

 

Maybe NASA is not selling a product and is instead, doing actual science.

If so, they've made a terrible decision. The Apollo project ended because NASA failed to sell the product. It's an unfortunate fact of doing science that someone has to fund it. If you want boatloads of OPM (other people's money), you'd better do your marketing homework.

 

Compare the coverage of...

SpaceX.

 

If so, they've made a terrible decision. The Apollo project ended because NASA failed to sell the product. It's an unfortunate fact of doing science that someone has to fund it. If you want boatloads of OPM (other people's money), you'd better do your marketing homework.

IMO, the Apollo project ended because we had done it (landed there), that dream was over and nobody followed. The reasons for going to the moon now are different, they are doing research into building there. That sort of basic science and research is hard for marketing to sell.

Let companies like SpaceX sell the dreams with boatloads of their money.

 

I remember the Apollo launches back in the day watching that almost hypnotic slow rise of that huge rocket from the pad, this thing takes off like a bottle rocket much like the shuttle, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised.

 

Let companies like SpaceX sell the dreams with boatloads of their money.

While the US "invests" in grifters with boatloads of mine.

 

I was born a couple of years before Sputnik and as a child witnessed the space race and all of the different “firsts” achieved by the Soviets and the Americans.

I Remember all the excitement, remember devouring the pages of the news magazines with stories and photos. I remember, exactly where and what I was doing when watching Neil Armstrong climb down the ladder.
The space race certainly influenced me becoming an engineer, and have been a space buff since then.

But now….. I don’t know. To me this flight doesn’t hold any excitement. I am jaded, cynical, tired? Perhaps all of the above.

 

The Artemis hardware is little more than welfare for the old guard system: Boeing, Lockheed, etc.. It has no future and will not and cannot compete with SpaceX, whose launch costs are at least an order of magnitude lower than this mission.

Those old shuttle engines in the booster stage - my tax dollars - are now on the ocean bottom. It's not a sustainable model.

 

The Artemis hardware is little more than welfare for the old guard system: Boeing, Lockheed, etc.. It has no future and will not and cannot compete with SpaceX, whose launch costs are at least an order of magnitude lower than this mission.

Those old shuttle engines in the booster stage - my tax dollars - are now on the ocean bottom. It's not a sustainable model.

I'm too lazy (and busy) to do the research, so I asked Grok. Nothing is confirmed. TIFWIW:

--------------------

Artemis missions (using NASA's SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft) are dramatically more expensive than equivalent or similar missions using SpaceX's Starship system, primarily due to differences in architecture, reusability, development approach, and operational model. Artemis relies on expendable hardware with high fixed costs, while Starship is designed for full reusability and rapid iteration, leading to projected orders-of-magnitude lower marginal costs once mature.

Artemis (SLS + Orion) Costs

• Per-mission/launch cost: Early Artemis missions (I–IV) are estimated at around $4–4.1 billion each, including the SLS rocket (~$2–2.5 billion recurring production/operations), Orion spacecraft, European Service Module, ground systems, and mission support. Some analyses put SLS alone at ~$2.5 billion per launch (excluding Orion).
• Development and program costs: SLS development exceeded $23–26 billion by first flight (with total program elements higher when including pre-Artemis work). Orion added ~$20+ billion. Ground systems and related infrastructure contributed several billion more. The broader Artemis program (including early missions, Gateway, etc.) was projected to reach ~$93 billion by FY2025, with cumulative spending on core SLS/Orion hardware exceeding $44–50 billion before sustained operations.
• Key drivers: Fully expendable rocket (boosters, core stage, upper stage discarded), low flight rate (at best 1 per year initially), complex supply chain with traditional cost-plus contracts, and extensive ground infrastructure. Costs have grown significantly due to delays and overruns. NASA has faced criticism that this is unsustainable long-term.

For a crewed lunar mission like Artemis III (Orion to lunar orbit + Human Landing System transfer), the SLS/Orion leg alone dominates the expense.

Starship Costs (Including HLS Variant for Lunar Missions)

• Projected mature per-launch cost: SpaceX targets $2–10 million per fully reusable flight (propellant ~$1 million or less; the rest is operations, maintenance, and refurbishment). More conservative near-term estimates for early operational flights range from ~$10–100 million per launch (e.g., one reported commercial contract at $90 million for a dedicated Starship launch). Elon Musk has referenced even lower figures (~$2–3 million) at high flight rates.
• Development costs: Estimated at ~$5–10 billion total for the Starship/Super Heavy system (private funding, with some NASA contributions via contracts). This is a fraction of SLS/Orion development.
• NASA contracts for Artemis: SpaceX's Human Landing System (Starship HLS) contract for initial lunar landing capability (including development and Artemis III support) is valued at ~$2.9 billion (with options/upgrades pushing related awards higher, e.g., toward $4 billion for early missions). A second provider (Blue Origin) received ~$3.4 billion. These cover a specialized lunar variant, refueling tankers, and landing demos—not raw Starship launches. Future missions are expected to cost far less on a marginal basis.

Starship requires multiple launches for complex missions (e.g., 8–15+ tanker flights for orbital refueling to enable a lunar landing with the HLS variant), but even then, the total is projected much lower than SLS due to reusability and lower per-flight costs.

Direct Cost Comparison for Similar Missions

• Basic heavy-lift to LEO or beyond: One SLS launch (~$2–4+ billion, expendable, ~95–100+ tons to LEO depending on config) vs. multiple Starship launches (potentially 150+ tons per flight at $10–100 million each). Analyses suggest Starship could deliver equivalent payload at 1/20th to 1/40th the cost or better once scaled. Cost per kg to the Moon has been estimated at ~$20,000 for SLS/Artemis vs. ~$2,000 (or far less) for Starship.
• Crewed lunar landing mission (e.g., Artemis III equivalent): Artemis-style SLS/Orion + lander leg: ~$4+ billion (plus HLS costs). A Starship-centric approach (Starship HLS with refueling) could total in the hundreds of millions to low billions initially (factoring in multiple Starship flights), dropping significantly with reuse and flight rate. Some estimates suggest 10x+ savings overall if shifting more architecture to commercial Starship variants. Starship HLS also offers vastly more payload/volume than traditional landers.
• Sustainability: SLS is limited by production rate and cost to ~1 flight/year max. Starship aims for dozens to hundreds of flights per year, amortizing costs like an airline. Early Starship HLS missions include development, so per-mission figures appear higher (~$1–2 billion range when amortized over initial flights), but marginal costs fall rapidly.

Caveats and Context

• Apples-to-apples challenges: Artemis missions bundle crew transport (Orion), lunar orbit operations, and landing. Starship HLS focuses on the landing leg but requires orbital refueling (adding flights). Full end-to-end comparisons depend on architecture (e.g., using Starship for crew as well would change the equation further).
• Current status (as of 2026): Starship is still in testing/refinement; full reusability, human-rating, and reliable refueling are not yet operational. Artemis has flown uncrewed (Artemis I) with crewed flights (II/III) delayed. Costs for Starship will be higher in the near term during development.
• Broader factors: Artemis includes international contributions, science payloads, and Gateway elements. Political and workforce considerations sustain SLS spending. NASA has explored commercial alternatives for post-Artemis III elements amid budget pressures.

In summary, for similar heavy-lift or lunar exploration missions, Starship offers a potential 10–40x cost advantage (or more at scale) over the SLS/Orion Artemis approach due to reusability and commercial development. This gap has driven discussions about transitioning NASA architectures toward commercial systems for sustainability. Actual realized costs will depend on Starship's maturation and NASA's procurement decisions.

 

https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions...eams-successfully-troubleshoot-orions-toilet/

 

https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions...eams-successfully-troubleshoot-orions-toilet/

View attachment 365527

Did they use the Sony Cybershot to capture that 640x480 photo onto one of those memory sticks?

"Ground control, the shi**ers on the fritz again. Get the Boeing janitor on the line."

 

... The crew members then will resume their sleep period around 9:40 a.m.

How can anyone force oneself to sleep at the beginning of an adventure such as this? ... I guess that eventually the astronauts will reach a point during their journey in which their circadian rhythm adapts to the programmed sleep cycles. But I very much doubt that'll be the case at first.

 

How can anyone force oneself sleep at the beginning of an adventure such as this? ... I guess that eventually the astronauts will reach a point during their journey in which their circadian rhythm adapts to the programmed sleep cycles. But I very much doubt that'll be the case at first.

Stress wears you out. That, and I doubt they slept the night before. I wouldn't have.

 

Finally, some entertainment.

And we learn they didn't bring their winter gear.

 

 

 

if i read it right
nasa is noow been told to scrap the moon space station , which is partly built .
so they are now trying to re design something designed for zero gravity, to see if they can use it on moon surface.

 

is this true,
the closest artimis got to the moon was around 4000 miles
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/...urpassing-apollo-13s-distance-record-00860790
wasnt Apollo nearer than 100 miles orbit ,
we seem to be saying lots about all the photos, but would they not have much better resolution close up ?
or how about going into orbit , Apollo 8 did on tbe first maned trip to the moon.

not saying its not wonderfull whats happening , but.

 

is this true,
the closest artimis got to the moon was around 4000 miles
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/...urpassing-apollo-13s-distance-record-00860790
wasnt Apollo nearer than 100 miles orbit ,
we seem to be saying lots about all the photos, but would they not have much better resolution close up ?
or how about going into orbit , Apollo 8 did on tbe first maned trip to the moon.

not saying its not wonderfull whats happening , but.

Different objectives.

If you wanted to see how the English Channel separates Britain and France, would you want to view a bunch of images taken from 1 mile up, or single image taken from 40 miles up? A very different answer than if you were interested in seeing whether specific locations were suitable for building a port. So you would want both if your goal was to first choose potential sites for your port and then to evaluate whether any of those sites are actually suitable.

While the media has made this huge hype about this being the furthest from Earth that anyone has travelled (and NASA has been fueling that hype, which is understandable from the perspective of their PR folks), that alone has never been a mission objective, and NASA officials made it clear in a couple of interviews that I saw that there were a number of factors that could result in that not happening and that they had no intention to do any course correction, not matter how minor, to make it happen as it would impose a slight additional risk without any justifiable reward.

Despite what the news media has been saying over and over about how this is the first time that the dark side of the moon has been seen by human eyes (and, yes, they have repeatedly used "dark side" instead of "far side"), the Apollo missions did, in fact, let humans see PORTIONS of the far side with their own eyes. But there was a significant amount of the far side for which that is not the case. At a distance of 4000 miles, the entire far side was now visible. NASA has been emphasizing how this allows the human brain to observe and process the landscape in subtle ways that imagery doesn't allow. I don't know the degree to which I buy that claim, at least to the degree of making it a critical mission objective. But I have no problem buying that the human vision/brain system sees physical landscapes differently that it does when viewing nominally identical imagery.

It's been frustrating to see the media, again, get the basic stuff wrong -- and, to be fair, one of the astronauts on Artemis II used the term "dark side" when they meant "far side", so it's a slip of the tongue that is easy to make since the phrase "dark side of the moon" is so engrained in our culture (thank you Pink Floyd!). But, even allowing for that, the media is showing yet again that they simply do not care about being accurate. Several times I have seen them talking to someone that, in some instances on of their own correspondents, who has gotten it right and pointed out that humans have seen portions of the far side before, only to have the anchor that was talking to them turn back to the camera and say that this will be the first time ever that humans have seen the far side of the moon with their own eyes.

As for going into lunar orbit, that wasn't the purpose of this flight. NASA (or any large program) has to decide what will be done at what stage to move the entire program along towards the ultimate objective. There's no single correct path, either. Each decision has pros and cons and affects other decisions. Artemis is NOT Apollo -- they are different programs with different systems and different constraints. Artemis II is testing different systems than Apollo 8 did. Just like in Apollo 8, in which the lunar module was not ready in time, the Artemis propulsion system is still being validated and NASA wants to test it and evaluate the results before using it for a lunar orbital insertion burn followed by a trans-Earth insertion burn, which are the two most risky burns of a lunar mission. Apollo 8 has sufficient prior testing of the system for NASA to accept the risk of doing lunar insertion with the first crewed mission -- but this decision was not primarily technical, but political. The Apollo program was well behind schedule and needed to make up significant ground quickly if Kennedy's vision of a lunar landing before the end of the decade was to be realized, and that drove changes in the incremental testing strategy that NASA originally adopted and that NASA was more than a little nervous about. Artemis, right now, is in a different environment in which progress can be more driven by technical considerations than politics (politics will ALWAYS be a part of the process, there's no getting around that).

 

This is pretty good: all the camera angles they didn't show us on launch day.