41–50 of 71 posts
I don't like this link. I've never heard of "forth.news" and the article is extremely brief and weird looking. Here's the official NASA channel video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5KnOtI4fS3U Also NYTimes and CBS News articles: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/15/science/nasa-moon-suit-as... https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/nasa-axiom-space-spacesuit-...
[flagged]
There's rocks on the moon. That's it.
We went collect moon rocks several times. We put a flag there, we put reflectors up there. The moon itself is rather boring.
Saying your question is "good faith" doesn't necessarily make it so. Same with implying you have a "steelman" argument. It's not. It's an idle thought.
The only reason to go back at this point is to conduct certain types of research. The moon doesn't have the same protections as Earth with regards to radiation. You can't just chuck some people and some plants on the surface and call it a day.
But it would be a good place to see what could withstand the radiation. Ways to mitigate that radiation. Ways to field test certain extraterrestrial bases with the least amount of risk possible. I mean, it's still 240k miles away, so if something goes really wrong, you're likely dead. But it's not like you're halfway to Mars and you realize you forgot to bring water.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Now we're going back with a plan. Not just to win the space race, but to start laying the foundation for a permanent moon base that we can use as a way point for going to Mars. 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.
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?
Because then there would be no reason for SLS, and all the jobs it creates. 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.
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…
There is no way they'll have a lander ready by then. They spent 10 years and $1B just to develop a suit before giving up. The lander RFP only went out in 2019. Their primary selection is a massive tower that's going to land on an uneven rocky surface and use the same engines to take off. There's way too much risk involved for them to ever meet that date. Apollo 12 landed on the edge of a crater with enough tilt that they were close to aborting the mission. If that happens with a starship they're all dead.
[flagged]
> If NASA were willing to fake great accomplishments, they'd have a second one by now.
More prosaically, the main reason that we went to the Moon in the first place was that it was a superpower dick-length contest, although the space technology also has sufficient other uses in things like intercontinental ballistic missiles and other military technology. Once someone landed on the moon, the contest was over, and the evaluation of the scientific or economic benefits of manned missions to the moon took over and... there isn't really that many, so interest in it waned very quickly, and resources were allocated to other (frankly, more useful) missions instead.
Interest has spiked again because it's essentially a new dick-length contest. Several powers that weren't superpowers 50 years ago are interested in doing it, in part, to prove their mettle as modern superpowers, and the US is interested in doing it again (in part) to one-up the wanna-be superpowers.
For the US in particular, manned spaceflight programs have had a fair amount of listlessness since the cancellation of Apollo. There's a tension between people who want to focus on LEO, those who want to move to the next great accomplishment (landing on Mars, which is probably somewhat beyond current capabilities, though how far beyond is debatable), and those who would rather have more robotic space exploration endeavors. And pretty much every administration comes in, declares a new vision for human spaceflight that scrubs the previous administration's proposals, and things move on because you can't get anywhere in 8 years.
Great choice of color, that lunar dust smudges are a pain to get out of the old white suites.
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?
Essentially the same point that we had in 60s, to be stepping stone for greater things.
Artemis is basically rebooting the manned space program, and that inevitably includes retracing some past steps to regain the position. Progress is not always a linear straightforward thing, occasionally there are setbacks and losses.
So the exitement for Artemis is not just for the mission itself, but more for it being a sign of manned space programs getting attention again, hopefully this time on a more sustainable basis than Apollo.