Random Thoughts

[Scott5114]

Another random thought.  Everyone is supposed to be excited about a mission where astronauts get really close the Moon but don't quite reach it before heading back home.

— This is the first time we've sent men to the Moon since 1972!
— But you aren't sending them to the Moon.  They're staying on board.

I think what's more remarkable is that it's the first time a manned mission has gone beyond low earth orbit since Apollo 17 in December 1972. While that was before I was born, it feels kind of mind-boggling that in all that time nobody has gone more than a few hundred miles up.

Yeah, I was thinking the same.  Couldn't help but shed a tear at the launch, even though I'm skeptical of whether humanity leaving Earth is actually a good thing for the rest of the galaxy given how we tend to act towards those we consider different/lesser and consume through resources like there's no tomorrow.

Humanity acting like that against a more powerful species and getting its ass kicked might be the only thing that might curb that behavior.

[kphoger]

Artemis II isn't a lander‑integration mission, but that doesn't make it purposeless. NASA's architecture is different from Apollo's, so the sequence of tests is different too. Apollo had a single stack launched on one rocket; Artemis uses separate launches, commercial landers, and a high‑inclination lunar orbit. That means Orion's deep‑space life‑support, navigation, comms, and crew operations still need a dedicated crewed test flight, even if the lander isn't ready yet.

It's also not accurate to say Artemis II "should" test NRHO insertion. The mission profile was deliberately chosen to stay within Orion's certified envelope and maintain a free‑return option for crew safety. That's a design choice, not a mistake.

Artemis with the interim upper stage does not have enough energy in the stack to LOI and orbit the Moon and then TEI back to Earth.  Artemis won't do that anyhow -- but it will have the capability to sent the crew to the NRHO which will be the lunar staging area for transfer to the lander.

Near‑Rectilinear Halo Orbit (NRHO)  is the planned Gateway orbit and the staging point for Artemis III–V. It is a "balanced on the edge" orbit around the Moon's L1/L2 region.

The comparison to Apollo 8/9 is interesting historically, but the programs aren't parallel. Apollo's order was driven by the Saturn V schedule, the LEM schedule, and Cold War pressure. Artemis is driven by a modular architecture, commercial lander development, and modern safety rules. Different constraints produce different sequencing.

So yes, Artemis II is limited in scope, and yes, it's not a lander‑test mission. But it's still a required step in certifying Orion for deep‑space crewed operations. Whether one thinks it's worth the cost is a separate debate, but it's not accurate to say it "does nothing" or that it's a repeat of Artemis I.

I love how you argue against things nobody said.

[1995hoo]

I love how you argue against things nobody said.

He felt the need to lecture and "educate" me about the use or non-use of the word "manned," too, when my point was more about the amusing image that came to mind when the news anchor used the word "crewed" and my mind heard it as "crude." I suppose my mental image of astronauts giving the finger and exposing their bare arses to the universe somewhat jibes with vdeane's comment in reply #5015 about "how we tend to act towards those we consider different/lesser."

[kphoger]

On the news the other night, one of the anchors referred to a "crewed mission," rather than a "manned mission," presumably because of the inclusion of a female astronaut.

Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston was renamed Johnson Space Center in 1973. The first female astronaut was in 1978.

NASA's first class to include women -- including Sally Ride, Judy Resnik, Anna Fisher, Kathy Sullivan, Rhea Seddon, and Shannon Lucid -- was selected in 1978, five years after the name change.

So the center stopped being called the "Manned Spacecraft Center" before NASA ever selected a woman astronaut.

I love how you argue against things nobody said.

He felt the need to lecture and "educate" me about the use or non-use of the word "manned," too,

And even then, he didn't.  All he talked about was the renaming of the Manned Spacecraft Center, which is something you never even brought up.

[Beltway]

I love how you argue against things nobody said.

He felt the need to lecture and "educate" me about the use or non-use of the word "manned," too, when my point was more about the amusing image that came to mind when the news anchor used the word "crewed" and my mind heard it as "crude." I suppose my mental image of astronauts giving the finger and exposing their bare arses to the universe somewhat jibes with vdeane's comment in reply #5015 about "how we tend to act towards those we consider different/lesser."

It was simply adding relevant context to the discussion of the Moon shot.
There was no intent to lecture anyone or argue a point.
It was just contributing additional material to the topic.

A tremendous amount of new science is sitting on the table at the lunar south polar region and on the far side, and it's the kind of science Apollo never reached and never could have reached with 1960s technology.

The south pole contains permanently shadowed regions that have been cryogenically cold for billions of years (or ~6,000 if you believe that way). Those areas trap volatiles -- water ice, carbon‑bearing compounds, and solar‑wind–implanted materials -- that preserve a record of early solar system chemistry. Sampling them directly would tell us how water and organics moved through the inner solar system and how much of Earth's inventory may have come from similar sources.

The far side opens a different frontier. Its crust is thicker, older, and far less volcanic than the near side, preserving a more pristine record of the Moon's early differentiation. The South Pole-Aitken Basin is one of the largest impact structures in the solar system, and sampling its interior could give us the first direct look at deep lunar mantle material. Add in the radio‑quiet environment -- ideal for low‑frequency astronomy -- and you have a region where geology, chemistry, and astrophysics converge.

Crewed missions amplify all of this. Humans can traverse complex terrain, adapt sampling strategies on the fly, troubleshoot instruments, and reach targets that rovers would take months or years to approach. The scientific return per hour of fieldwork is orders of magnitude higher when trained geologists are physically present.

[kphoger]

It was simply adding relevant context to the discussion of the Moon shot.

The date that the Manned Spacecraft Center was renamed to honor Pres. Johnson was not relevant context for anything.

[Molandfreak]

[Scott5114]

It was simply adding relevant context to the discussion of the Moon shot.

The date that the Manned Spacecraft Center was renamed to honor Pres. Johnson was not relevant context for anything.

The game "Ten Chances" debuted on episode #1502D of The Price Is Right, aired July 15, 1975.

Simply adding relevant context to the discussion of the Moon shot.

[Beltway]

It was simply adding relevant context to the discussion of the Moon shot.

The date that the Manned Spacecraft Center was renamed to honor Pres. Johnson was not relevant context for anything.

Really Mr. Watson?  Refer to post #5020 with commentary about "crewed" and "manned" -- and the possible question about having a "diverse" crew?

Besides, they made sure to have a diverse crew, just to ensure the Moon Men don't get any wrong ideas.

On the news the other night, one of the anchors referred to a "crewed mission," rather than a "manned mission," presumably because of the inclusion of a female astronaut. The terminology is accurate, of course, but it threw me off at first because my mind heard it as a "crude mission," which had me picturing astronauts flying through space giving the middle finger and mooning out the capsule windows.

[english si]

If you view it from the other side, then it's an ampersand.

&

Which fits Artemis II a little as a linker of two things.


Not as good as Apollo 8 with its 8-shaped path though:

(best mission patch by a mile)

[The_Ginger]

As a musician, I do enjoy this, but I play the trombone, and that is mainly in the bass clef, pictured below.

I wonder how you'd have to alter the flight path to make it look like that! 

[formulanone]

As a musician, I do enjoy this, but I play the trombone, and that is mainly in the bass clef, pictured below.

I wonder how you'd have to alter the flight path to make it look like that! 

After the two boosters are deployed...

[Molandfreak]

As a musician, I do enjoy this, but I play the trombone, and that is mainly in the bass clef, pictured below.

I wonder how you'd have to alter the flight path to make it look like that! 

Simply move the treble clef down to note G at the bottom line of the staff, then it's effectively the same.

[kphoger]

I wonder how you'd have to alter the flight path to make it look like that! 

Tragedy above the dark side of the moon.

[Beltway]

As a musician, I do enjoy this, but I play the trombone, and that is mainly in the bass clef, pictured below.

I used to think that the bass clef is inferior to the treble clef.

The treble clef looks like a decorative emblem.
The bass clef looks like a utilitarian symbol.

[The_Ginger]

As a musician, I do enjoy this, but I play the trombone, and that is mainly in the bass clef, pictured below.

I used to think that the bass clef is inferior to the treble clef.

The treble clef looks like a decorative emblem.
The bass clef looks like a utilitarian symbol.

Fair point there, but I note that you have used the word "used" there. How has your opinion changed?

[Molandfreak]

As a musician, I do enjoy this, but I play the trombone, and that is mainly in the bass clef, pictured below.

I used to think that the bass clef is inferior to the treble clef.

The treble clef looks like a decorative emblem.
The bass clef looks like a utilitarian symbol.

Fair point there, but I note that you have used the word "used" there. How has your opinion changed?

Probably the realization that the alto/tenor clef is actually the least creative design.

[Beltway]

As a musician, I do enjoy this, but I play the trombone, and that is mainly in the bass clef, pictured below.

I used to think that the bass clef is inferior to the treble clef.
The treble clef looks like a decorative emblem.
The bass clef looks like a utilitarian symbol.

Fair point there, but I note that you have used the word "used" there. How has your opinion changed?

Probably the realization that the alto/tenor clef is actually the least creative design.

Band in high school -- played clarinet and oboe, music is in treble clef.

Sang tenor in chorus in college, and the male parts (tenor and bass) are usually in the bass clef. Same in church choir music.

[Molandfreak]

As a musician, I do enjoy this, but I play the trombone, and that is mainly in the bass clef, pictured below.

I used to think that the bass clef is inferior to the treble clef.
The treble clef looks like a decorative emblem.
The bass clef looks like a utilitarian symbol.

Fair point there, but I note that you have used the word "used" there. How has your opinion changed?

Probably the realization that the alto/tenor clef is actually the least creative design.

Band in high school -- played clarinet and oboe, music is in treble clef.

Sang tenor in chorus in college, and the male parts (tenor and bass) are usually in the bass clef. Same in church choir music.

Similar story here. The only experience I have with the alto clef is through writing orchestral arrangements for fun in MuseScore. Some music for the euphonium and trombone is in the tenor clef.

The clefs are designed after the letters they represent, and G just happens to be a letter that can look really nice in several calligraphic shapes. So does F, so I'm not sure why the F (bass) clef design is minimalist in comparison, but I wouldn't call it bad. The two C clefs (alto and tenor) use two backwards C shapes surrounding the line which represents middle C, but they just look like a bracket shape to me. Just an underwhelming look compared to the other two clef designs.

[Beltway]

Band in high school -- played clarinet and oboe, music is in treble clef.
Sang tenor in chorus in college, and the male parts (tenor and bass) are usually in the bass clef. Same in church choir music.

Similar story here. The only experience I have with the alto clef is through writing orchestral arrangements for fun in MuseScore. Some music for the euphonium and trombone is in the tenor clef.
The clefs are designed after the letters they represent, and G just happens to be a letter that can look really nice in several calligraphic shapes. So does F, so I'm not sure why the F (bass) clef design is minimalist in comparison, but I wouldn't call it bad. The two C clefs (alto and tenor) use two backwards C shapes surrounding the line which represents middle C, but they just look like a bracket shape to me. Just an underwhelming look compared to the other two clef designs.

I have heard that the bass clef is based on F letter as well -- although I can't see that.

I knew later that it doesn't matter which looks "better" -- they are what they are, and if you play or sing you just use the music that is in front of you.

[kphoger]

I used to think that the bass clef is inferior to the treble clef.

You were correct.

Merriam–Webster
inferior adjective
3 : situated lower down : lower

[Beltway]

I used to think that the bass clef is inferior to the treble clef.

You were correct.
Merriam–Webster
inferior adjective
3 : situated lower down : lower

Nobody was claiming the bass clef is "inferior" because it's physically lower on the staff; it was about aesthetic or musical "inferiority." Quoting Merriam-Webster's third definition as if that settles the argument is just a dodge.

If "inferior" only meant "lower," then by that logic: the bass voice is "inferior" to the tenor, men's voices are inferior to the female voices, the cello is "inferior" to the viola, the baritone horn is inferior to the trumpet, the left hand on piano is "inferior" to the right, and so on; not what anyone meant.

If 'inferior' only meant 'lower,' then half the orchestra is inferior by geography alone.

[Rothman]

I think the bass clef is inferior to the treble clef.  Has fewer curves.

[Scott5114]

I've spent most of my time playing bass-clef-using instruments (trombone and electric bass, the latter of which actually plays the octave below bass clef but everyone pretends it doesn't just to make the notation easier) that any time I try to play around with an instrument that uses treble I'm totally lost. I can try and force my mind to accept that the note written is a G, but my heart wants to play a B. Not great for actually making music come out!

I have heard that the bass clef is based on F letter as well -- although I can't see that.

The large curly stroke is the stem of the F and the two dots are the branches. The line between the two dots is the F line.

[Rothman]

I've spent most of my time playing bass-clef-using instruments (trombone and electric bass, the latter of which actually plays the octave below bass clef but everyone pretends it doesn't just to make the notation easier) that any time I try to play around with an instrument that uses treble I'm totally lost. I can try and force my mind to accept that the note written is a G, but my heart wants to play a B. Not great for actually making music come out!

As a piano player, it's hard to not see you as a simpleton. ;D