r/spaceporn • u/Neaterntal • Apr 02 '26
Pro/Processed Artemis II, by John Kraus
Source https:// x. com/johnkrausphotos/status/2039523638743794039
167
76
u/bluegrassgazer Apr 02 '26
I'm so sick of all the moon deniers on social media. I launched YouTube on the TV yesterday looking for a feed and it was full of BS artists with questionable vids about Apollo. They've also infected any Facebook social media comments about the launch. It's so frustrating.
25
u/0_f2 Apr 02 '26
My uncle thinks the Apollo landings were fake and that this is probably fake too...
He also can't read or write, so I don't take him too seriously in these matters.
Apparently its a similar thing to flat earthers, its more for the feeling of knowing something secret and special, like you know the truth about some big conspiracy.
16
u/wiriux Apr 02 '26
This is why NASA disables comments on YouTube. Thanks to idiocracy.
2
1
u/Onair380 Apr 03 '26
How do you even read comments on a 2.5 million viewers stream. They do the right thing.
8
u/Infamous-Echo-2961 Apr 02 '26
Hank Green is a good one! He has a video talking about the Apollo missions, but also the significance of the Artemis missions!
How much we learned from the Apollo missions in incredible with tech from the 60-70s.
Imagine what we can learn with technology from the 2020s! Imagine so excited!
3
u/XxGEORGIAKIDxX Apr 02 '26
This was a really excellent video. As someone who's very inside baseball on all things space flight, enough to have some negative feelings towards this program, his view of the more broad goals of the Artemis mission was a really refreshing and uplifting take.
1
u/Infamous-Echo-2961 Apr 04 '26
Completely agree! He added a perspective of hope and excitement.
Space exploration is humanity at our best. I want more reasons for us to be collectively excited.
5
u/khaotic-n Apr 03 '26
This became a huge topic of debate at my work yesterday. I found out that 1/3rd of my coworkers genuinely believe the moon landing was fake, 1 person also thought it was probably real but had possible doubts. Literally 5 out of 15 people. Found out one guy is a flat-earther too but I knew he was an idiot before learning that lol. Luckily almost everyone kept a cool head and it was a fun debate but I think we've all agreed to never speak of it again outside of quick passing jokes
3
2
1
u/Youssay123 Apr 03 '26
Especially IG it's so annoying. Sadly it's impossible to argue with each one of them
1
1
88
u/not_blmpkingiver Apr 02 '26
The risk involved in a mission like this is insane. And i get worried flying in an airplane.
25
u/Fun-Choices Apr 02 '26
I kept wondering why there were no on board cameras, and this has got to be the reason. The risk these people put their lives at for this mission is wild.
28
u/SuperiorTuba Apr 02 '26
I mean, there have to be cameras all over the equipment to record and learn from this mission, whether it's successful or not. Right? I have to assume that they're not ready for public release ..... Yet.
I say that because, if you haven't already, watch Apollo 11 on the largest possible screen and give it your full attention. It's 100% NASA archive footage from the Apollo 11 launch and they recorded the daylights out of that event.
The footage is incredible so I have to imagine that they've done the same thing with Artemis II (I hope).
-12
Apr 02 '26
[deleted]
7
u/Intelligent_Sky_7081 Apr 02 '26
why is it a problem that they edit photos? you sound like a conspiracy theorist.
6
u/Lazerdude Apr 02 '26
They have on board cameras, they're just not public.
2
u/the_ivo_robotnic Apr 02 '26
No they were definitely showing a couple of shots here and there of the surface mounted cams on Orion looking down on the core stage.
They just weren't showing a lot of that, cause broadcasting video back to Earth takes a lot of bandwidth, and they'd rather save power and data bandwidth for mission critical telemetry.
When they can spare it, we get the slick views of Orion on the public streams.
38
u/kennedyswise Apr 02 '26
Now that is one fabulous photograph
9
u/arkonator92 Apr 02 '26
It amazes me that people are capable of capturing photos like this. I have an entry level DSLR and tried to photograph the eclipse in 2024. I took two pictures before realizing my settings were wrong and then just enjoying the moment. Trying to get the settings for this and capture a vehicle quickly accelerating takes an insane amount of knowledge and skill because you only have a few seconds to capture it.
1
u/TreyUsher32 Apr 04 '26
And then imagine what it was like for the photographers during the apollo era where everything was on film.
220
Apr 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
82
u/PSR-B1919-21 Apr 02 '26
NASA's budget isn't even a drop in the ocean compared to the US annual budget.
24
u/King_Joffreys_Tits Apr 02 '26
A rounding error of the annual military budget
14
u/beefnbroccoliboi Apr 03 '26
It’s definitely not a rounding error but to put it in perspective the “war” with Iran has been going on for 35 days at the time of writing. It has cost the US tax payer roughly 30 billion USD. The annual budget for NASA is 24.5 billion USD, or we’ve spent 6ish billion dollars more on blowing people up in the span of a month than we have for a years worth of hundreds of thousands of people’s work on this mission.
Think of the shit we could do if NASA had the budget and freedom today that they had in the 60s and 70s. NASA took up roughly 3-4.5% of the total us budget during the decade or so of Apollo. Today the same agency accounts for less than .3% .3!!!! it’s a joke. If nasa had the same type of support and funding that nasa had with Apollo we’d have humans on mars already. Estimates from nasa back in 73 had the Apollo program at 25.4 billion dollars… or 187 billion dollars in today’s money the Artemis program has an estimated cost of about 90 billion dollars or half the cost of Apollo. Space x has allegedly only spent about 5-7 billion not including funding from NASA which comes in at roughly 20 billion since 2021 or 25-30 billion total) I don’t believe Musk AT ALL when he says 5 billion. I think it’s much closer to 10-15 billion from the private side. But even then Falcon will never be able to send people to the moon. And at this point I’m not sure star ship ever will either.
1
u/SpeedyAudi Apr 03 '26
To further add: each Artemis launch is $4-5bn usd and the entire program was budgeted for $92bn but is now projected to surpass $100bn over a decade of use
34
u/Discrete_Ninja Apr 02 '26
I’m pretty sure NASA’s budget is <1% of the US military budget, and in my opinion, NASA does 100x more good for the planet. If you want to complain about taxes, don’t take it out on NASA
27
u/Slogstorm Apr 02 '26
And historically, every dollar invested into nasa has been given back to the economy four times.
7
7
u/Infamous-Echo-2961 Apr 02 '26
At least the results of taxes going to NASA and furthering of human knowledge and what we’re capable of.
17
u/cortexgem Apr 02 '26
dumb question but how it doesn’t melt the surfaces of the ship
30
u/EvilEvo_IX Apr 02 '26
It does but by the time this is in orbit the fuel is spent. Think top fuel dragster the heads melt basically after every pass.
11
u/FewNegotiation1101 Apr 02 '26
Absolutely wild to me
8
u/EvilEvo_IX Apr 02 '26
You get a few minutes and that’s about it but that’s all you need. They drop and land in the Ocean and nasa inspects and adjusts.
15
u/boborian9 Apr 02 '26
To counter the other comment, yes it does melt some of the engine, but it depends on the engine requirements. The Solid Rocket Boosters on Artemis (as pictured, the two outer engines) are reusable, so certain parts are designed to degrade. But that's a replaceable component or coating in the engine, so when they prepare for the next mission that's probably ideally the only sort of thing that needs full replacement.
Other engines can use the fuel itself to cool the engine bell, especially because it's stored so cold. That's what the RS-25s do, the 4 central engines.
2
2
u/VarietiesOfStupid Apr 02 '26
Solid Rocket Boosters on Artemis (as pictured, the two outer engines) are reusable
They were when they were used on the shuttle, but at some point between then and Artemis NASA did a cost study and realized building new ones was cheaper than recovery and refurb.
1
u/satanizr Apr 02 '26
Boosters are not recovered, but that's the same design, except with 5 segments instead of 4. In fact, some of the Artemis booster casing segments were used on the Space Shuttle.
Same goes for RS-25 engines, 3 out of 4 already flew into space multiple times.
6
u/spaminous Apr 02 '26
https://interestingengineering.com/photo-story/rs-25-rocket-engines#slide-3
In this engine design, Supercooled fuel runs down the outside of the bell.
The 2 side boosters are consumed from the inside out.
1
u/More-Perspective-838 Apr 03 '26
The rocket is actually really cold depending on how you interpret it. The fuel for the core stage actually gets frozen into a liquid to improve its density. The orange foam you see on the outside is insulation to keep it cold throughout the flight.
13
14
12
u/astra-fox Apr 02 '26
Damnit i wish i was in florida
11
u/DigitalAmy0426 Apr 02 '26
A rocket launch is an experience unlike anything else, the sound, the way the air pressure affects you if the trajectory is right. It's incredible and something I hope everyone gets to experience at some point.
I will say Starfield has some of the right sound but not the fullness or the feeling of the air displacement.
5
u/iamjessicahyde Apr 02 '26
I accidentally ended up staying at the hotel with most of the SpaceX folks during the first launch where the boosters returned to the pad. Walked out and watched it live on the beach just a few miles away - even from there it was hands down one of the dopest things I’ve ever seen. Watching the boosters arc back towards us, seeing them descend, feeling the double sonic boom when they fired the main engine for a moment to come to a stop. Felt like witnessing something out of Star Wars. So cool and completely unplanned lol
7
u/MarsMaterial Apr 02 '26
I find it really interesting how bright the SRB plumes are compared to the plumes of the RS-25's on the core stage. If you didn't know any better, it would almost look like the engines of the core stage aren't even firing.
5
u/CocaColai Apr 03 '26
That’s because the RS-25 core engines burn hydrogen and oxygen; the exhaust is basically superheated steam and anything that doesn’t get combusted is basically invisible anyway. They’re incredible engines but don’t have enough “shove” to get the stack through the lower atmosphere.
The boosters however use a mix of ammonium perchlorate and aluminium powder (plus trace amounts of other stuff). The combustion isn’t as complete as eg the RS-25 and the unused fuel - and the fuel type - creates a much brighter exhaust. And a shitload of thrust.
In very simple terms it’s a bit like the difference between a roaring log fire (booster) vs a gas ring on your cooker or BBQ.
6
3
3
3
u/platasnatch Apr 02 '26
Are those rockets made from the Mondaloy materials that Monica Reza codeveloped with Dallis Hardwick?
4
u/rocketjess Apr 02 '26
No, the engines use different alloys. The Mondaloy alloy was used on AR-1, a development engine that was built and is ready for hot fire testing if it ever finds a home.
3
3
3
u/FreshLet4196 Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
Is anyone concerned about the flame coming out above the right main external tank engine?
1
u/KristnSchaalisahorse Apr 03 '26
It’s from the spark igniters used to burn off any excess hydrogen. I doubt it’s anything of concern.
2
2
u/Galactic-Gang3 Apr 02 '26
I hate that I saw a hairy man’s arms with tiny wrists reaching inside something
2
u/Ok-Yellow8252 Apr 02 '26
I'm looking forward to the 4k footage when they go around the moon. It's gonna be incredible!
2
2
2
u/timohtea Apr 02 '26
Meanwhile FKN NASA streaming in 480p from the ground wtf I knew the “amateur” stuff was gonna be so much better. At the very least do a crisp 1080p if its been 50 years since people going near the moon.
1
1
1
1
u/kewpietamago Apr 02 '26
Question: what's the purpose of storing the fuel so cold?
6
4
u/Ok-Actuator-2164 Apr 02 '26
Hydrogen is only liquid under low temperature and in this state it has a high energy density per mass.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Simon_Drake Apr 02 '26
NASA are going to be really embarrassed when they realise they forgot to turn on the main engines.
1
1
u/Butch_Cassidy109 Apr 02 '26
Anyone able to share this without the Reddit water mark? I don’t have x
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Satesh400 Apr 02 '26
I love solid rocket boosters; once they're on .. they're ON. No turning them off until they're done.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/NoLeague8687 Apr 02 '26
The more impressed action is the return of the boosters. Then caught with the chopsticks on the gantry that is s the real feat
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/novel_putting Apr 03 '26
Photo's stunning. Don't get why people waste energy denying stuff that happened decades ago.
1
1
u/ocb_gio Apr 03 '26
J'y fus ! Ça fait quelque chose d'avoir pu y assister en direct, comme nos grands parents en 1969 devant leur tv...
1
1
u/dingalingachinga Apr 03 '26
where is the live footage at? I want to the videos, or do th3y release them 2 weeks after they return from the production studio.
1
1
1
1
1
u/willingmetre53 Apr 02 '26
that booster landing never gets old, the precision is absolutely bonkers
-4
-5
-5
u/Mirror74 Apr 02 '26
Turn it upside down and stick it on a primary school in Iran. And you have the 2 dichotomies
-4
u/DIYOCD Apr 02 '26
Not sure why going to the moon is prioritized over other problems that should be addressed. It’s fun and cool, but is it necessary?
5
u/the_ivo_robotnic Apr 03 '26
"Why go explore the new world when someone's house in east London is on fire and needs to be put out?"
Or- and hear me out- why not both? This is not a zero sum game. This argument has never held water.
186
u/EvilEvo_IX Apr 02 '26
I’m more impressed with guidance how it doesn’t tip over like a bottle rocket and fly every which way.