They missed it pulling off the pad, they then had a picture of the plume, the wide shot off the pad was quite a bit too late also, then they missed the separation of the boosters and the upper stage separation.
Honestly it looks like they intentionally missed every high risk procedure intentionally and cut back a few seconds after it had succeeded.You don't make this many mistakes one after the other accidentally, its easier to do this right than wrong, cutting to the crowd as booster separation occurs was clearly intentional. I take this as NASA had very little confidence in this launch and was avoiding showing all the moments it could go wrong live.
That’s so conspiratorial. They could just stream with a slightly delay to interrupt the feed on disaster. I think it’s way more likely they just didn’t have a good broadcasting team.
The camera and simulation footage were a bit of a letdown and something SpaceX does much better. On the other hand NASA launches do evoke a feeling of substance over form where science takes precedence over presentation. For that money however I concur - I expected more. Especially the simulation footage where the lack of brightness made it hard to see the vehicle - they might as well have used KSP for it
> Especially the simulation footage where the lack of brightness made it hard to see the vehicle - they might as well have used KSP for it
Livestream simulated footage continues to be a joke with all space agencies, private and government alike. They really should be using KSP for it - it's not hard to wire up with external telemetry, and with couple graphics mods, it looks way better than whatever expensive commercial professional grade simulator rendering they're using (which I suspect is part of a package that may be really, really great at simulations - and is intentionally not great at visuals of this kind, as it doesn't show anything that isn't directly representing some measurement).
I think this is a “you have one job” kind of thing for shooting liftoff (no matter what quality of equipment is on hand): rocket goes up, tilt camera up.
Bonus: Try to match the speed of the tilt with the speed of the rocket in the frame.
The feeling it evoked in me was that a multi billion dollar PR program could surely afford to spend a little bit of money on reliable camera tracking, telemetry overlays, visualisations that run at more than 0.1 FPS, etc.
Indeed. This has been my gripe since first SpaceX booster landing attempts - I understand that "livestream from an IMAX camera" may be very low at the list of priorities for space missions, but... it shouldn't. Even if recovered after the fact, having a solid, high-quality footage from flight and orbit would make a huge impact on the publicity goals they're all explicitly trying to achieve. There's a shortage of good footage from space; at this point, a 4k/60FPS recording released in public domain would easily redefine how space scenes look in movies, TV and video games in the next decade[0].
I'm not saying it's an easy engineering problem, but at least for LEO, the recording side is a solved problems (we all carry more than good enough hardware in our pockets), and the major challenge would be about keeping the lense/viewport clear throughout the ascent, and dealing with vibrations.
--
[0] - It already happened many times. The step shift of how black holes are portrayed after Interstellar folks did the math is the most obvious one to notice; more subtly recent productions seem to also take into account the asymmetry of the brightness, after the telescope photo of a black hole reached public awareness. But even earlier, there's e.g. been a change of how planets are shown - you see much less of the geographical atlas spheres with clear continent lines, and much more of low-angle, close-up shots that look suspiciously similar to the footage from the International Space Station.
Even SpaceX is only okay with their broadcasts. They normalized showing very little data and spending the whole time with talking heads that don't say anything.
Go look what the livestream was like for the Mars Curiosity rover, it was fantastic, and that was on a mission taking place 8 minutes away. Their simulation was mostly Demo data for some parts of the mission, but included such things as what part of the control program it was in! It was even a good rendering. I screenshotted it for a desktop background.
But the camera quality is so low and I don't get it.
It seems like the entire industry has just ignored the lessons of old: "Get someone who does this for a living". They should have connections and partnerships with movie companies who actually know how to run cameras. That shouldn't be expensive nowadays, as that knowledge seems to be cheap enough for Youtube creators.
The entire prelaunch is scripted. Safety is the point of prelaunch checklists and polls. Why would you get bent out of shape over each of them being able to give their own response to the final call before launch?
Artemis has a budget of over 90 billion dollars, it's more than 4 billion for that Artemis II launch (as estimated by NASA, possibly more because they don't even know exactly how much they're spending). For that price one might reasonably expect a couple of quality cameras for the public to be able to view what their money was spent on. For comparison, a SpaceX ISS resupply mission costs NASA ~$150 million. While that's a very different rocket and mission, that still doesn't account for a 26x higher price!
NASA had their budget cut, but when you look more into it a lot of that never went into spaceflight to begin with.
Minimum effort has always been NASA's approach to online streaming tbf, 720p potato quality cameras with lots of mission control static shots. I think SpaceX were the first ones to provide anything at full HD with relevant stuff being shown at all times.
Crazy that a dude from Iowa and his ragtag group of rocket watchers does a better job with launch coverage than NASA. I can't believe they cut away during booster separation. Absolute shit show.
This isn't the last run for this rocket, is it? We'll do it again.
And when we do it again, maybe we should pay the dude from Iowa (who has made a career out of things like streaming rocket launches on video) to provide his team's shots and editing for the official live feed when launch time comes up.
Crazy that a dude from Iowa and his ragtag group of rocket watchers does a better job with launch coverage than NASA.
You may not have noticed, but NASA was also launching an actual rocket at the time. Conducting a livestream and conducting a livestream while launching a rocket to the other side of the moon are hardly equivalent.
Absolute shit show.
You have a remarkably low threshold for "shit show."
Did they also shut down the bathrooms? You know, to focus the mind?
That is the worst possible take. The people launching the rocket and the people filming the launch are not actually the same people, nor do they take the same resources.
> You have a remarkably low threshold for "shit show."
I wish more people did. We certainly have an excess supply of shit shows these days.
Eh, separation of concerns. Given NASA's PR budget, it seems reasonable that they should be able to produce quality launch coverage.
The many people involved in safely launching a rocket are not responsible for providing launch coverage, and the people who provide launch coverage are not allowed to interfere with the many people involved in safely launching a rocket. If they're going to do a bad job at one of those jobs I'd much rather they do a bad job at providing launch coverage, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
> never-before-seen views of “the far side of the Moon“
I guess not counting all the prior "views" that have been recorded since the Apollo missions, including Chinese orbiters which (according to Wikipedia) "scanned the entire Moon in unprecedented detail, generating a high definition 3D map that would provide a reference for future soft landings"
> "will use laser beams to live-stream 4K moon footage at 260 Mbps..."
> "will be used to beam 4K moon footage at up to 260 Mbps."
> "Data rates of 260 Mbps can be achieved..."
I wonder what size stream will be available to us. The largest I see in general is 70-90 Mbps for a 4k Bluray Remux and that includes lossless audio. I imagine they would want as much data as possible—significantly more than would be visible to the human eye.
Artemis II is expected to be behind the moon for about 30-40 minutes. Around half-way in the video you can see Earth pass behind the moon in about 1-2 seconds. So yes, it's sped up considerably by a factor of around 2000x
It also helps that laser beams diverge. By the time it gets back to Earth, the diameter of the beam from Artemis is probably several hundred meters, if not several kilometres. Their aim still needs to be fairly precise, but they're not trying to hit a lens with a beam that's still the width of a pencil. They really just need to paint the neighbourhood that NASA's sensors are located in.
A reminder that the illegal DOGE took a chainsaw to NASA personnel last year. If you're disappointed that the feed update wasn't as polished as a SpaceX launch it's because the later has an actual communications and marketing department with a budget.
There are plenty of ways that money could have solved this though.
More thorough prep/training for camera operators, so they can pan the camera according to a plan, instead of by reaction.
Maybe this camera operator wasn't supposed to pan because it was trying to capture diagnostic imagery that wasn't really intended for viewers, but because of budget cuts, they opted to use diagnostic views as presentation views.
Maybe there was supposed to be a cut to a different camera. But the production room was not sufficiently staffed to coordinate the switch.
Maybe there was no broadcast plan at all and it wasn't clearly coordinated who should be taking what shots.
Maybe they were underpaying the operators and they were not qualified.
Maybe they were underpaying the operators and a single operator was stuck operating multiple cameras and was framing a different camera at the time.
Automated tracking systems.
Sure, it's very likely that this might have happened anyway, but there are a lot of ways that reducing budget reduces planning and coordination. Especially if there is enough budget squeeze to move funds from public support campaigns (this entire stream was a public support campaign) to critical things (like building a rocket).
I've watched hours of athlete parents try to track their athlete kid and it's marginally useful at best. Lots of shaky cam even at Pop Warner football speeds. So panning at the right time, with the muscle control to keep the object centered, is harder than you think.
If they have a professional videographer on staff working that camera it almost certainly would have never happened. Elon, who was in charge of DOGE, didn't take communications and marketing seriously so I'm almost certain they were one of the first to be let go.
SpaceX coverage is much better! lol This is such nonsense. How much does a professional videographer cost? It's a rounding error given what they spend. It's just bad planning and decision-making. This is a damn mission to the moon, not little league baseball, why would you ever compare the two?
I remember NASA broadcasts being top notch up until the end of the Space Shuttle program in 2011. That stabilized footage from when the shuttle was landing is iconic.
However: That quality was lost earlier than last year. Not sure exactly when, but it been like this for years now.
This is nonsense excuse making. Regardless of how much money you want NASA to have, are you not yourself upset that the billions they do get were not sufficient to use cameras correctly? How much money do you think it costs to do this right?
Hopefully, the footage is better than the missed pan up at lift-off, and showing spectators at the time of booster separation.
I understand funding cuts and all, but this is a once-in-a-generation moment and it’s filmed with no apparent effort whatsoever.
They missed it pulling off the pad, they then had a picture of the plume, the wide shot off the pad was quite a bit too late also, then they missed the separation of the boosters and the upper stage separation.
Honestly it looks like they intentionally missed every high risk procedure intentionally and cut back a few seconds after it had succeeded.You don't make this many mistakes one after the other accidentally, its easier to do this right than wrong, cutting to the crowd as booster separation occurs was clearly intentional. I take this as NASA had very little confidence in this launch and was avoiding showing all the moments it could go wrong live.
That’s so conspiratorial. They could just stream with a slightly delay to interrupt the feed on disaster. I think it’s way more likely they just didn’t have a good broadcasting team.
The camera and simulation footage were a bit of a letdown and something SpaceX does much better. On the other hand NASA launches do evoke a feeling of substance over form where science takes precedence over presentation. For that money however I concur - I expected more. Especially the simulation footage where the lack of brightness made it hard to see the vehicle - they might as well have used KSP for it
> Especially the simulation footage where the lack of brightness made it hard to see the vehicle - they might as well have used KSP for it
Livestream simulated footage continues to be a joke with all space agencies, private and government alike. They really should be using KSP for it - it's not hard to wire up with external telemetry, and with couple graphics mods, it looks way better than whatever expensive commercial professional grade simulator rendering they're using (which I suspect is part of a package that may be really, really great at simulations - and is intentionally not great at visuals of this kind, as it doesn't show anything that isn't directly representing some measurement).
I suspect this is a frequency thing. Early SpaceX broadcasts were pretty rough. NASA just doesn't do launch coverage with the same sort of cadence.
Honestly, they should consider outsourcing that bit.
I think this is a “you have one job” kind of thing for shooting liftoff (no matter what quality of equipment is on hand): rocket goes up, tilt camera up.
Bonus: Try to match the speed of the tilt with the speed of the rocket in the frame.
They did that with the Apollo 17 LEM lift-off
https://www.redsharknews.com/technology-computing/item/2742-...
We can send a man to the moon, but we can’t have HD footage of the man going to the moon.
/s but not really
> evoke a feeling of substance over form...
The feeling it evoked in me was that a multi billion dollar PR program could surely afford to spend a little bit of money on reliable camera tracking, telemetry overlays, visualisations that run at more than 0.1 FPS, etc.
Absolutely bizarre.
Indeed. This has been my gripe since first SpaceX booster landing attempts - I understand that "livestream from an IMAX camera" may be very low at the list of priorities for space missions, but... it shouldn't. Even if recovered after the fact, having a solid, high-quality footage from flight and orbit would make a huge impact on the publicity goals they're all explicitly trying to achieve. There's a shortage of good footage from space; at this point, a 4k/60FPS recording released in public domain would easily redefine how space scenes look in movies, TV and video games in the next decade[0].
I'm not saying it's an easy engineering problem, but at least for LEO, the recording side is a solved problems (we all carry more than good enough hardware in our pockets), and the major challenge would be about keeping the lense/viewport clear throughout the ascent, and dealing with vibrations.
--
[0] - It already happened many times. The step shift of how black holes are portrayed after Interstellar folks did the math is the most obvious one to notice; more subtly recent productions seem to also take into account the asymmetry of the brightness, after the telescope photo of a black hole reached public awareness. But even earlier, there's e.g. been a change of how planets are shown - you see much less of the geographical atlas spheres with clear continent lines, and much more of low-angle, close-up shots that look suspiciously similar to the footage from the International Space Station.
Even SpaceX is only okay with their broadcasts. They normalized showing very little data and spending the whole time with talking heads that don't say anything.
Go look what the livestream was like for the Mars Curiosity rover, it was fantastic, and that was on a mission taking place 8 minutes away. Their simulation was mostly Demo data for some parts of the mission, but included such things as what part of the control program it was in! It was even a good rendering. I screenshotted it for a desktop background.
But the camera quality is so low and I don't get it.
It seems like the entire industry has just ignored the lessons of old: "Get someone who does this for a living". They should have connections and partnerships with movie companies who actually know how to run cameras. That shouldn't be expensive nowadays, as that knowledge seems to be cheap enough for Youtube creators.
> NASA launches do evoke a feeling of substance over form
For real?
I was rolling my eyes hard at:
And then the VERY scripted pre-launch speeches. It’s like everyone there had been taking notes from inspirational hero movies.It’s cool. But let’s not act like going around the moon is the most historic thing ever… since we’ve already done it plenty, right?
They literally played clips from actors in recent moon movies so yes, they definitely were taking notes from movies.
The entire prelaunch is scripted. Safety is the point of prelaunch checklists and polls. Why would you get bent out of shape over each of them being able to give their own response to the final call before launch?
What NASA does goes in the history books.
What SpaceX does goes in quarterly reports.
Artemis has a budget of over 90 billion dollars, it's more than 4 billion for that Artemis II launch (as estimated by NASA, possibly more because they don't even know exactly how much they're spending). For that price one might reasonably expect a couple of quality cameras for the public to be able to view what their money was spent on. For comparison, a SpaceX ISS resupply mission costs NASA ~$150 million. While that's a very different rocket and mission, that still doesn't account for a 26x higher price!
NASA had their budget cut, but when you look more into it a lot of that never went into spaceflight to begin with.
It’s not rocket science, it’s media production/direction.
They had 4000 people cut in 2025 and big budget cut in 2026.
Maybe that included the camera crews and equipment.
> missed pan up at lift-off
Tilt up. Pan is from side-to-side, and the word comes from "panorama".
I’ve read elsewhere that the cut-away during booster separation was intentional given the high risk manoeuvre.
If something went wrong / explosion etc, then they wouldn’t want to broadcast it.
Something to that effect. I’m paraphrasing someone else.
Minimum effort has always been NASA's approach to online streaming tbf, 720p potato quality cameras with lots of mission control static shots. I think SpaceX were the first ones to provide anything at full HD with relevant stuff being shown at all times.
Crazy that a dude from Iowa and his ragtag group of rocket watchers does a better job with launch coverage than NASA. I can't believe they cut away during booster separation. Absolute shit show.
maybe they should turn back and do it again
This isn't the last run for this rocket, is it? We'll do it again.
And when we do it again, maybe we should pay the dude from Iowa (who has made a career out of things like streaming rocket launches on video) to provide his team's shots and editing for the official live feed when launch time comes up.
Remember to post the link in HN next launch:
something like> It's better to watch the tivestream for DudeFromIowa that usualy has a better coverage than Nasa http://www.youtube.com/whatever .
We've already seen what happens when you allow social media types to infect the government.
Let's not foster any more of it.
Crazy that a dude from Iowa and his ragtag group of rocket watchers does a better job with launch coverage than NASA.
You may not have noticed, but NASA was also launching an actual rocket at the time. Conducting a livestream and conducting a livestream while launching a rocket to the other side of the moon are hardly equivalent.
Absolute shit show.
You have a remarkably low threshold for "shit show."
Did they also shut down the bathrooms? You know, to focus the mind?
That is the worst possible take. The people launching the rocket and the people filming the launch are not actually the same people, nor do they take the same resources.
> You have a remarkably low threshold for "shit show."
I wish more people did. We certainly have an excess supply of shit shows these days.
So an organization as large as NASA can either walk, or chew gum -- but cannot do both at the same time?
Eh, separation of concerns. Given NASA's PR budget, it seems reasonable that they should be able to produce quality launch coverage.
The many people involved in safely launching a rocket are not responsible for providing launch coverage, and the people who provide launch coverage are not allowed to interfere with the many people involved in safely launching a rocket. If they're going to do a bad job at one of those jobs I'd much rather they do a bad job at providing launch coverage, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
> never-before-seen views of “the far side of the Moon“
I guess not counting all the prior "views" that have been recorded since the Apollo missions, including Chinese orbiters which (according to Wikipedia) "scanned the entire Moon in unprecedented detail, generating a high definition 3D map that would provide a reference for future soft landings"
A more accurate claim would be: never-before-seen in real-time at that fidelity from lunar distance.
Real time has to be about the most useless factor here. I don’t care if it’s a year delayed, it’s not like I was going to head up there myself.
>...it’s not like I was going to head up there myself.
You're never going to be able to IPO your space startup with that attitude.
Those were transmitted offline so they didn't have authentic NVENC H264 compression artifacts. Never before have you seen it with 260 Mbps ;)
/s
This in particular warmed my grumpy heart after the best footage of the launch came from a commercial airliners windows.
I had assumed they would've had a better plan to film the entire departure from orbit yesterday.
I'm at least happy they have one for the loop around the moon.
I think the actual best footage of the launch was from Everyday Astronaut on youtube, including a great shot of the booster separation
https://www.youtube.com/live/QOsSRRBMNoc?t=6h49m36s
> "will use laser beams to live-stream 4K moon footage at 260 Mbps..."
> "will be used to beam 4K moon footage at up to 260 Mbps."
> "Data rates of 260 Mbps can be achieved..."
I wonder what size stream will be available to us. The largest I see in general is 70-90 Mbps for a 4k Bluray Remux and that includes lossless audio. I imagine they would want as much data as possible—significantly more than would be visible to the human eye.
Didn't Nokia put a 4G cell node up there?
Who is going to be the first to make a smartphone call from the moon?
Lag won't be too bad, just 1.5 seconds or less
260 Mbps for 4K seems to be awfully a lot for a single stream. Really makes me wonder what has been used for compression ...
Why does the article keep mentioning footage “from the surface of the moon”?
NASA's rendering of the flyby:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a005500/a005536/a2_fly...
Hope we get to see something like this in 4K !
Is that real-time or sped up? This video is about 1 minute. How much real time does it correspond to?
Artemis II is expected to be behind the moon for about 30-40 minutes. Around half-way in the video you can see Earth pass behind the moon in about 1-2 seconds. So yes, it's sped up considerably by a factor of around 2000x
the writeup is helpful but i'd want to see how it handles edge cases
How does laser communication work with a moving object with 9DoF?!
Apparently with a gimbal and some fast-moving mirrors.
https://www.ll.mit.edu/news/lincoln-laboratory-laser-communi...
It also helps that laser beams diverge. By the time it gets back to Earth, the diameter of the beam from Artemis is probably several hundred meters, if not several kilometres. Their aim still needs to be fairly precise, but they're not trying to hit a lens with a beam that's still the width of a pencil. They really just need to paint the neighbourhood that NASA's sensors are located in.
Just like this, a Starlink gimbal being tested for future third party laser comms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpFfC9WY0qs
A reminder that the illegal DOGE took a chainsaw to NASA personnel last year. If you're disappointed that the feed update wasn't as polished as a SpaceX launch it's because the later has an actual communications and marketing department with a budget.
I really don’t think budget cuts prevented the camera operator from panning up at the right time…
There are plenty of ways that money could have solved this though.
More thorough prep/training for camera operators, so they can pan the camera according to a plan, instead of by reaction.
Maybe this camera operator wasn't supposed to pan because it was trying to capture diagnostic imagery that wasn't really intended for viewers, but because of budget cuts, they opted to use diagnostic views as presentation views.
Maybe there was supposed to be a cut to a different camera. But the production room was not sufficiently staffed to coordinate the switch.
Maybe there was no broadcast plan at all and it wasn't clearly coordinated who should be taking what shots.
Maybe they were underpaying the operators and they were not qualified.
Maybe they were underpaying the operators and a single operator was stuck operating multiple cameras and was framing a different camera at the time.
Automated tracking systems.
Sure, it's very likely that this might have happened anyway, but there are a lot of ways that reducing budget reduces planning and coordination. Especially if there is enough budget squeeze to move funds from public support campaigns (this entire stream was a public support campaign) to critical things (like building a rocket).
> panning up at the right time…
I've watched hours of athlete parents try to track their athlete kid and it's marginally useful at best. Lots of shaky cam even at Pop Warner football speeds. So panning at the right time, with the muscle control to keep the object centered, is harder than you think.
If they have a professional videographer on staff working that camera it almost certainly would have never happened. Elon, who was in charge of DOGE, didn't take communications and marketing seriously so I'm almost certain they were one of the first to be let go.
SpaceX coverage is much better! lol This is such nonsense. How much does a professional videographer cost? It's a rounding error given what they spend. It's just bad planning and decision-making. This is a damn mission to the moon, not little league baseball, why would you ever compare the two?
Less budget = less tooling + less competant people
So actually, yes, it could have affected it. Did it really? We will never know.
Also NASA has less experience in this than SpaceX, hopefully it will be better next time!
I really don’t think budget cuts prevented the camera operator from panning up at the right time
Tilting is up and down.
Panning is left to right.
You can't pan up, unless you've fallen over.
Presumably they had more than one camera and the fault was with people in the booth.
I remember NASA broadcasts being top notch up until the end of the Space Shuttle program in 2011. That stabilized footage from when the shuttle was landing is iconic.
However: That quality was lost earlier than last year. Not sure exactly when, but it been like this for years now.
This is nonsense excuse making. Regardless of how much money you want NASA to have, are you not yourself upset that the billions they do get were not sufficient to use cameras correctly? How much money do you think it costs to do this right?