31–40 of 71 posts
We're still using the same approach as in the 1960's. No reusable rocket, no in-situ resource utilization, no new breakthrough tech.
What's the point of returning? To prove we haven't regressed since the 60's?
[flagged]
YES we (well some highly trained and lucky astronauts) went to the moon. It's like your assuming all of the landers NASA and other countries have landed on Mars and Venus are fake too.
Landers and rovers to mars make sense to most people. Not having to deal with life support and being very familiar with the mechanics of cars and robots and drones helps.
I think the crux to me is that we did a thing six times, and then stopped for 50 years, no one else even tried, and only now after tech has drastically improved are we doing it again.
I think the better argument is that while some things are easier, some are harder than say Mars. Between the solar day and temp extremes.
[flagged]
We're also using 2023 safety standards, budgets, and political will. It's not an engineering problem.
I feel like over the past few decades I have seen tons of news like this or that at least feels like this where there is some announcement about tangible progress that is made towards our returning to the moon -- some new prototype capsule announcement, a new unveiling of a rocket plan, the new suits, the "biosphere" stuff, etc. -- only to then see a published time horizon for the moon return which seems to always be…
NASA's Artemis program is generally on track - Artemis 1 (uncrewed test flight into lunar orbit which then returned to Earth) was successful in 2022. Artemis 2 (humans going into lunar orbit) is scheduled for next year, and indications seem to be that it's on track. Artemis 3 (humans landing on the moon) is scheduled for 2025. So there has been very tangible progress in the form of Artemis 1, plus the schedule is to…
[flagged]
Reasons we never went back: 1) It was principally a national pride competition between the US and USSR so when the US succeeded there wasn't much of a reason to go there. We gathered loads of rocks for all the science we could want to do for a long time (they're still cracking open fresh samples to this day). 2) There's not that much economically or scientifically on the moon to really investigate that needs people t…
The financial woes of the 70's combined with the substantial cost overruns of the Shuttle Craft killed Congress' appetite for further investment. Modern technology has substantially lowered the costs so we've revived the idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starship will be the rocket delivering them to the surface. It is likely to have a first orbital test within the next 3 months. That will be a major milestone, approaching the capability to once again land and return humans from the lunar surface.
What I don't understand is why is the SLS being used to transport the humans to lunar orbit but the Starship HLS is supposed to take them to the surface? Why not just ride the Starship the whole way?
At this point it's widely accepted the SLS design is already obsolete with no reuse, is wildly expensive, and is extremely delayed.
But it creates a lot of jobs in areas where congressmen want to get reelected, so they keep it going.
Sooner or later it will die and Starship will take over, but it's going milk many more billions before then.
Am-I the only one to be completely uninterested by Artemis? We're still using the same approach as in the 1960's. No reusable rocket, no in-situ resource utilization, no new breakthrough tech. What's the point of returning? To prove we haven't regressed since the 60's?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starship will be the rocket delivering them to the surface. It is likely to have a first orbital test within the next 3 months. That will be a major milestone, approaching the capability to once again land and return humans from the lunar surface.
What I don't understand is why is the SLS being used to transport the humans to lunar orbit but the Starship HLS is supposed to take them to the surface? Why not just ride the Starship the whole way?
[flagged]