Talk:Artemis I/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Payloads

Not sure what this sentence means, or at least the highlighted part (between the **).. "Callisto will use video conferencing software to transmit audio and video from mission control and use the Alexa virtual assistant to **respond the audio**." Do they mean, "respond **to** the audio"? Thanks 120.16.14.5 (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Could we tabulate the launch attempts

Could we tabulate the launch attempts (as done for Orion EFT-1 :

Launch attempts (for EFT-1)

Attempt	Planned	Result	Turnaround	Reason	Decision point	Weather go (%)	Notes
1	4 Dec 2014, 7:05:00 am	Hold	—	Fouled Range			A boat entered the launch range.
2	4 Dec 2014, 7:17:00 am	Hold	0 days 0 hours 12 minutes	Weather			Gust wind excess speed limit (21 kn or 24 mph or 39 km/h).
3	4 Dec 2014, 7:55:00 am	Hold	0 days 0 hours 38 minutes	Weather			Gust wind excess speed limit (21 kn or 24 mph or 39 km/h).
4	4 Dec 2014, 8:26:00 am	Hold	0 days 0 hours 31 minutes	Technical	​(T-00:03:09)		A fue fill and drain valve did not close.
5	4 Dec 2014, 9:44:00 am	Scrubbed	0 days 1 hour 18 minutes	Technical			24-hour recycle.
6	5 Dec 2014, 7:05:00 am	Success	0 days 21 hours 21 minutes

and then reduce or incorporate the existing text ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

We did it!

Artemis 1 is now in orbit, and we can now update the article! QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes! One of my favorite parts of space-Wikipedia is being able to change "is planned to X" to "successfully performed X at 12:34:56", makes me smile every time. :) EnzoTC (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Rip SpaceX Starship CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It's the right time order to keep updating the "largest operational rocket" title. --mfb (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

nice That Prussian1872 (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

requested edit

Would someone look into why the mission is so slow (26-42 days in length). Why so slow. Apollo seemed to be faster. I am sure that other readers came to Wikipedia to find out the answer. GeorgeSpec (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Transit to the Moon is still only about three or four days, just like Apollo. The difference is that Artemis will spend many days traveling in the Moon's proximity on eccentric orbits to test its maneuverability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.102.146.203 (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Payload mass?

I can't seem to find a payload mass. Anyone have any better luck finding one? ChekhovsGunman (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

archive parameters changed

Archive just seemed to put entire talk page into archive and left this empty with no threads, so I've change params to leave at least 5 threads here, (and not make an archive until at least 5 threads will be archived). Could maybe change so only threads with no changes for 90? days are archived?) - Rod57 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I like this change, Thank You @Rod57. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

80 miles from the surface

These are statute miles and not nautical miles so the conversion in km is wrong. Hektor (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Could we show the status of the mission?

For the table in the mission profile section, should we add a status column to show what event the mission is at? For example, colouring the background or showing what has completed and what is in progress. I think it would make it easier to use the table. ARandomName123 (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I propose to change the table from elapsed time to actual time like below now that the liftoff time is available. I just added the elapsed time/date to Nov. 16 6:47:44.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Time (UTC) (HH:MM:SS)	Event
Nov 16 6:47:44	Liftoff
6:49:56	Solid rocket booster separation
6:50:55	Service module fairing jettisoned
6:51:00	Launch abort system jettisoned
6:55:47	Core stage main engine cutoff
6:55:59	Core stage and ICPS separation
7:05:53 - 7:17:53	Orion solar array deployment
7:40:40 - 7:41:02	Perigee raise maneuver
8:17:11 - 8:35:11	Trans-Lunar injection burn
8:45:20	Orion/ICPS separation
8:46:42	Upper-stage separation burn
10:09:20	ICPS disposal burn
14:35:15	First trajectory correction burn
Scheduled
Nov 17-20	Outbound coasting phase
Nov 21 12:44	Lunar outbound powered flyby
Nov 21-24	Transit to distant retrograde orbit (DRO)
Nov 25-30	In DRO
Dec 1 21:53	DRO departure burn
Dec 1-4	Exiting DRO
Dec 5 16:43	Return powered flyby
Dec 5-11	Return transit
Dec 11 18:06	Entry and splashdown

Good idea, but please make it clear which time zone it refers to. Conversion to UTC would be helpful if EST is used. — Voice of Clam 09:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I added UTC to the top and also changed mission time to time, because mission time starts at liftoff. --mfb (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be best if we included both mission elapsed time, and UTC time, so people wouldn't have to calculate it themselves. ARandomName123 (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It took off from Florida in the US so it should be EST. Rockets launched from Greenwich or the surrounding areas are welcome to use UTC as their standard. BogLogs (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

For spaceflight, time is usually shown as UTC, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Style guide - Wikipedia ARandomName123 (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That seems to be the result of a very short discussion by just 6 editors in 2012: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 5#Spaceflight article standards and conventions. Artemis 1 was launched in EST and at the very least both times should be shown in this table. It goes without saying the local time should be shown for launches in India, Japan, and other spacefaring countries. BogLogs (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, we still have to follow the style guide. UTC is the standard on spaceflight articles. You are welcome to start a discussion on the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page, if you would like to change it.

ARandomName123 (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

As it's a poor policy that only benefits those living near Greenwich, I wonder why some editors on here are so invested in it, I really think it should be changed. Thanks for the advice, I've started a discussion here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Local Time Vrs UTC. BogLogs (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Lede main objective: test Orion spacecraft & its heatshield

The current lede says: "Its main objective is to test the Orion spacecraft, especially its heat shield, to be used in subsequent Artemis missions that seek to reestablish human presence on the Moon..."

Are we expressing this correctly? Is the main objective of the $21 billion spent on SLS to date (and another bunch of billions on Orion space capsule) for this first launch to merely "test the spacecraft and its heatshield"? Did not the US government do that before, in 1969? What is fundamentally new and different here? Seems like the Wikipedia article ought to explicate this better in the article lede. N2e (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@N2e I somehow agree, and there also is the following fragment which could use some rephrasing imo: "and explore future possibilities of space tourism (especially to Mars)". The nuance i see here is that first and foremost Nasa is targeting the generic (manned?) exploration of Mars, the Moon, and other celestial bodies, space tourism being only one of several potential side effects (and only achievable after a more sustained presence is achieved, sustained presence which has other objectives to begin with) 79.114.83.217 (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the primary test objective is to test the spacecraft and the heat shield. If you read the press kit here: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis-i-press-kit/, you can see the heat shield objective is the highest priority mission objective.

Space tourism is not a prospective use for Orion or SLS. I think the lede should stay as is. 156.68.2.84 (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Good work on finding that NASA finds a test of a heat shield the highest priority objective of this two-decades-in-the-works mission. So, pretty much just aiming to do quite little, like the lede currently reflects.

But Wow, one certainly can't buy much for US$30 billion any more, when the US government is spending taxpayer money. Of course the article should represent the highest priority objective(s) as stated by the builder/customer who spent the money and commissioned the thing. (and no one anywhere here has suggested that at that huge cost to date, this thing would ever be appropriate for private use. Neither Orion nor SLS are remotely cost competitive for privately-paid-for space missions.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That is understandably the highest priority objective when testing a new spacecraft certified for beyond low-earth orbit operations.

Lunar reentry is extremely violent and orders of magnitude more heating than a LEO reentry.

All engineers that worked on Apollo are retired and many aren't even alive anymore. This is new stuff for this generation

Furthermore IIRC the heatshield is using a new material and fabrication method different than Apollo

What is fundamentally new and different? Everything? Orion and Apollo are both conical and that's about it. They're completely different on the inside IVotedForBobDoleIn1996 (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

EFT-1 tested an Orion heatshield, but then the design was changed (to make it easier to construct/test) so it makes sense that testing the new design is a high priority for Artemis-1. - Rod57 (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

AI controlled burns?

I think it is a bit of a stretch to call as AI the automated burns behind the moon out of communications. NASA has been doing automated burns out of communications range since the early 60's, nothing AI about it. It is just simple programming "Point this direction and burn this time/Dv" Bit of a stretch to call this time-honored procedure AI; not even the (NASA) reference calls it that. Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Strong concurrence, came to do the same edit after reading several of the articles and NASA blog posts. Initially my thought was for "AI/ML" (loose term, as it is) was: What dataset are they training it with? Scotty.tiberius (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

OMOTENASHI

So, OMOTENASHI lost contact on November 17, and on most other pages it says that the mission was a "spacecraft failure". On this page, though, it still says:

"OMOTENASHI, designed by JAXA, is a lunar probe attempting to land using solid rocket motors."

I would change it to:

"OMOTENASHI, designed by JAXA, was a lunar probe which attempted to land using solid rocket motors."

Billionnine (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a reasonable change. I rephrased it as "would have attempted to land", leaving out details, which are in the OMOTENASHI article. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

trajectory

Hello. We have multiple files at c:Category:Trajectory of Artemis 1. Why aren't we using any of them? Are we supposed to include the only stuff that has taken place? If so, there must some file describing the completed trajectory. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Advise the creation of a gallery section

There will be a boatload of more images coming in from the mission as time goes and also images are already over flowing past their sections. I suggest moving some images to a new gallery section and adding any new images from the mission there as well. I want your opinions, I wanted to consult the community before I did anything like that. Thank you all for the work you've put in so far! 209.142.32.163 (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I think its a great idea! Anyone else? Spaceman2288 (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• support in part. A few images should be out of the gallery, including one of trajectory. There are a lot at c:Category:Trajectory of Artemis 1. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

According to article 13 CubeSat deployers though image seems to show 14

In the article is said..

The stage adapter contains thirteen CubeSat deployers in total

It seems that the image right beside it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_1#/media/File:ARTEMIS-1_(CUBESATS).jpg seems to (I think, though I don't know much at all about rockets) show 14 deployers. Wallby (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

According to this: SLS Core Stage Fact Sheet (nasa.gov), one of the slots is reserved for an avionics unit. ARandomName123 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

US date format

The article should use US mdy date format like FA Apollo 11 does, and per MOS:TIES — not European dmy. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. BogLogs (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it would use a different format, and MOS:TIES supports your argument. Though space travel affects the world, this project is NASA driven with specific links to the United States. If this involved a project such as the International Space Station, there could be a counter-argument to support using different time formats given that the project involves more than just one country. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The date format is currently inconsistent within the article; changing it to mdy. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add more images of splashdown to the gallery

Any images anyone is able to get from a an authorized source, please make sure you publish them in the gallery if you can. To make space for 1 expected image of the Orion in the water I have moved 1 excess image from the flight tab to the gallery. So if possible please put 1 image there and the rest in the gallery. Thank you all for your hard work! Spaceman2288 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

SLS mission diagram

There is an error in it. During ICPS burns (TLI for instance) the Solar Array Wings are deployed. Hektor (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

If you mean this diagram, it's taken from NASA. You can contact them. --mfb (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It is not this diagram. It is that one. The document on Commons is sourced from the press kit. But we are not obliged to retransmit diagrams from NASA, we know are wrong and contradict the text of the article. Hektor (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Obviously nobody cares that the mission diagram is wrong. This is sadly indicative of the lack of interest for such missions. Hektor (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Shaun the Sheep toy

Technically it was not a toy, it was one of the actual models which Aardman Studios uses for stop motion filming. Hektor (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Renomination for Good Article?

The article was nominated before for Good Article, but it was rejected because the mission hadn't occured or been completed yet. Now that the mission has been completed, can we renominate the article? QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

A good article with wrong diagrams ? (see above) Hektor (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Artemis 1 or Artemis I

If the official name is Artemis I as said, why Artemis 1 is used here? MachoCarioca (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Incredibly weirdly, the footnote after "officially Artemis I" seems to contradict it as well, saying: "Artemis mission names will use a roman numeral convention." Plexust (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Gallery for Artemis 1

Hey, why do you think it may be a good idea to get rid of the gallery? Many articles have a gallery, so that's why I was wondering. No issue, simply curious why? Spaceman2288 (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

---

• Artemis 1 → Artemis I
• Artemis 2 → Artemis II
• Artemis 3 → Artemis III
• Artemis 4 → Artemis IV
• Artemis 5 → Artemis V

– NASA has consistently used roman numerals for Artemis mission names. We currently, and somewhat awkwardly, reference this in the first line of each page.

For example: "Artemis 3, officially Artemis III, is...".

For the sake of accuracy and simplicity, I would like to propose we move the pages to use the same roman numeral convention. RickyCourtney (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, consistency with Wikipedia titles referring to the Apollo program, Project Gemini, and Project Mercury, etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  According to a reference cited on the pages, NASA has addressed this discrepancy: "While Apollo mission patches used numbers and roman numerals throughout the program, Artemis mission names will use a roman numeral convention." -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Most of Gemini's patches contained only Roman numerals but its 12 missions are still remembered and commonly known, as well as titled on Wikipedia, with simple numbers. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Using Roman numerals meets the Naturalness guideline because it's the convention NASA actually uses. I got here today because I was searching for "Artemis III". You can't be consistent with both the actual name and the standards used for previous programs, and the actual name makes more sense. Jwolfe (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes the Naturalness guideline applies; does NASA (a primary source) determine what's 'natural?' See: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%22Artemis%203%22,%22Artemis%20III%22&hl=en for a sense of what's natural. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 10:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'd search Artemis 3 too. That's just because it's easier to type, just like you would search SLS instead of Space Launch System. Narnianknight (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Whotookthatguy (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Official NASA convention is more important than any other factor. Narnianknight (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per NASA convention. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support as it is an established use; decimal numerals would still be used as redirects. This may not be consistent with other NASA programs, but that's not our problem: if the primary source is not consistent, we have no reason to enforce such consistency for them Cambalachero (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Astronomy/Moon task force, WikiProject Astronomy/Solar System task force, WikiProject Spaceflight, and WikiProject Astronomy have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.