Artemis 1 selfie

Here's a "selfie" of Artemis 1 capsule, taken from a camera located on one of its solar panels.
Image levels slightly corrected as the original is over-exposed.

a reply to: wildespace

It's a fantastic picture; it just still looks a bit dated to me. I did real that it tore up the launchpad pretty handily on liftoff, ripped off blast doors, etc., very wild stuff.

Looks like 70’s tech. Shame Werner and his boys could t keep young and keep going. I mean, I know, but we would have had based on Mars by now.

a reply to: wildespace

Not gonna lie, I am clearly not a rocket scientist but how the FFFFF***CK have we not with literally billions (F*ing BILLIONS) of dollars over 75 years not reconstructed these things to look more modern? Am I the only one thinking this? With all the UAPS we see flying around and Bob Lazar and all these other people coming out with the stuff we (possibly) have.... The damn stealth bombers from 50 yrs ago are sexier than this!

If NASA really wants the younger generations to believe the next generation of BS they are going to feed the masses, they need to do a better job of selling and packaging this crap to us.

We grew up with Star Wars, Star Trek (both old and new versions) Marvel movies etc.

Sorry after seeing things like the F-35 and some of the submarines of the 21st century I just have to look at this whole thing and giggle.

a reply to: HUBE007

You think it should look like the freaking USS Enterprise?!!!!?

Star Trek was Science Fiction, you know?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
Naaah, make it look like a Star Destroyer or the Nubian craft Qui Gon and Obi Wan flew out of Naboo with Anakin as a child.

a reply to: HUBE007

They think that the almost 70's aesthetic circuit board tech looks better than the stealth bomber.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I do in fact yes.

$1,000,000,000.00

If you were to count that high aloud; At a rate of one number per second, it would take approximately 31 years, 251 days, 7 hours, 46 minutes and 40 seconds of counting nonstop.

That amount of money it should look like whatever the hell they want it to look like. At least something better than what they shelved 75 years ago if they want me to believe this is all we have to go to the moon and all they really got going on.

I thought this was a sight for us to question our government agencies not be lackies for them.

a reply to: HUBE007

Question away, but no amount of money is going to buy off the laws of physics or buy an Enterprise.

originally posted by: Roxstar
a reply to: Oldcarpy2
Naaah, make it look like a Star Destroyer or the Nubian craft Qui Gon and Obi Wan flew out of Naboo with Anakin as a child.

You do realize those ships are at least a thousand years more advanced technologically?

There is no need to design anything that is airodynamic to fly where there is no air. The Space Shuttle actíally flew to land. This capsule just falls then uses parashoots. It doesn't fly in air.

Is that ice on the left side????


Oh I think it may be off the solar panals.
still the shape is very odd.
it can not be off just one!

originally posted by: HUBE007
a reply to: Oldcarpy2
...
At least something better than what they shelved 75 years ago if they want me to believe this is all we have to go to the moon and all they really got going on.
...

It's more like 50 years ago instead of 75, but, I get your point. It still looks like the lunar lander from 1969. I'm sure they could have made it sexier but when hurling something through space, it's best to concentrate on making it work rather than looking cool. Elon's starship will look a lot better though.

a reply to: Hypntick

I think the NASA lettering and logo are pretty out dated, unless their going for the retro look like some of the fad currently. I do like the retro Burger King logo over the current cartoonish one though.

The capsule in design definitely looks to have more modern engineering vs the old Saturn V capsule, that thing looked like barn roof material.

a reply to: HUBE007

Because space is not modern it's violent, lots of bolts...everywhere.

originally posted by: HUBE007
a reply to: wildespace

Not gonna lie, I am clearly not a rocket scientist but how the FFFFF***CK have we not with literally billions (F*ing BILLIONS) of dollars over 75 years not reconstructed these things to look more modern? Am I the only one thinking this? With all the UAPS we see flying around and Bob Lazar and all these other people coming out with the stuff we (possibly) have.... The damn stealth bombers from 50 yrs ago are sexier than this!

If NASA really wants the younger generations to believe the next generation of BS they are going to feed the masses, they need to do a better job of selling and packaging this crap to us.

We grew up with Star Wars, Star Trek (both old and new versions) Marvel movies etc.

Sorry after seeing things like the F-35 and some of the submarines of the 21st century I just have to look at this whole thing and giggle.

These things have to be practical, functional, and safe, first and foremost. The looks come second. But if your take on this is that NASA are just putting on a show to fool people, yes, I see where you're coming from.

My take on this - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The basic design has worked all this time; it's just a capsule that can hold people and equipment, and make a re-entry and safe landing. That's all we need, really.

a reply to: wildespace

Maybe it's just me, but it looks almost identical as Apollo 17.

a reply to: stelth2

You mean the way a Fararri looks like a Ford? You know, four wheels and windows around the upper middle.

No, it's just you. You only see the shape and not the details.

a reply to: HUBE007

we could just paint it red to make it go faster

No matter what developments in science and technology there have been since rockets into space was first a thing, the basic laws of physics involving the best shape for going very fast through air haven't changed. Pointy works best.

Plus it's covered with a sexy launch escape system during launch. Makes it look much better. Once out of the atmosphere a square box would be fine.