Artemis (NASA moon mission)

Acting NASA Chief Announces More "Shakeups"

Citing delays, acting NASA chief Sean Duffy announced that the Artemis Program - NASA's plan to return astronauts to the Moon - needs to be shaken up again. The announcement came on Monday (Oct. 22nd) when Duffy, also the Secretary of Transportation, made two television appearances to discuss ongoing problems with the program. This included the development of the Starship Human Landing System (HLS), the lunar lander that will transport astronauts to and from the lunar surface, which NASA contracted to SpaceX in 2021.

In addition, Duffy intimated that NASA's current timeline for Artemis III (scheduled for 2027) is no longer tenable. To this end, he said that NASA will expand the competition to develop an HLS system that will land astronauts on the lunar surface and return them to orbit. This latest announcement comes on the heels of budget cuts, mass layoffs, and shifting priorities, all of which were summarized in the White House's FY 2026 Budget Request. The main priority this document stressed was the need to "beat the Chinese to the Moon," who are currently planning on landing taikonauts no sooner than 2030.
Click to expand...

The idea that we need to "beat the Chinese to the Moon" again. Well we did beat them to the moon by over 50 years. However, this new effort isn't even close to being ready to repeat that. Framing this as some sort of race with the Chinese is a mistake.

Why are we going to the moon again? There needs to be a better reason than "because the Chinese are doing it and we have to get there first."
Is it to establish a permanent presence there or just to repeat what we did with the Apollo missions (but with diverse astronauts!!)?
 
I'm imagining a future where, every few decades, NASA races to beat the next country to the moon. And then faces a high cost and little reward in remaining, so cuts the program.

Rinse and repeat.
 
a_unique_person said:
Despite Elon's hubris out will be a proof of concept as much as anything else. If Elon can't even land on the moon I don't know how he expects to land on Mars.
Click to expand...
In truth I don't think he 'expects' to do either. It's all bluster to boost his brand for as long as possible. According to his 'plans' from several+ year sago he'd be on Mars already and building an autonomous base, ready for manned landings (or would they already have happened? I forget)
 
3point14 said:
Which, I think, is mental.

That seems to me like a metric bucketload of extra, unneeded mass?
Click to expand...

Yeah. I guess how much stuff you take along depends on what you intend to go there for.

"To beat the Chinese" is essentially the same task as "To beat the Soviets", and NASA already knows you can land a couple of people from lunar orbit using a craft that's just 15 tons, most of which is fuel, and one third of the mass it is the part which brings them back to orbit again.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I would be astounded if he proposed one design for both tasks. Landing on Mars is pretty similar to landing on Earth. Landing on the moon is a completely different challenge.
Click to expand...
Landing on Earth is different from the Moon or Mars mainly because of wind and dedicated landing facilities.

Landing on Mars should be very similar to the Moon. Mars has an atmosphere like Earth, but is much less dense so it won't be as much of a factor as on Earth. And I don't think they have plans for landing facilities on the Moon or Mars.

Getting to the Moon or Mars is mostly what's different from going into orbit around the Earth then returning. It will require refueling in space which SpaceX has yet to demonstrate.

So, I think being able to land on the Moon is a good prerequisite for landing on Mars.
 
Mars is a deep gravity well, much more like Earth than the moon, and you pick up a lot of momentum falling into it. Atmosphere is both a blessing and a curse. It's the obvious way to turn momentum into heat and slow yourself down without expending tons of fuel but, being so thin on Mars, that's quite tricky.
 
GlennB said:
In truth I don't think he 'expects' to do either. It's all bluster to boost his brand for as long as possible. According to his 'plans' from several+ year sago he'd be on Mars already and building an autonomous base, ready for manned landings (or would they already have happened? I forget)
Click to expand...
In 2016 he predicted crewed missions to Mars in 6 years. Last year he said it was 4 years away and a "self-sustaining city" on Mars is 20 years away. You can get to the moon and back in a couple of weeks but a trip to Mars (and back) would likely take 2 years minimum. We haven't even had an astronaut spend that much time on the space station yet. The record is a bit over a year for a single stay. (437 days)
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Mars is a deep gravity well, much more like Earth than the moon, and you pick up a lot of momentum falling into it. Atmosphere is both a blessing and a curse. It's the obvious way to turn momentum into heat and slow yourself down without expending tons of fuel but, being so thin on Mars, that's quite tricky.
Click to expand...

That's true. I considered that as part of the reason that in-space refueling is so important. What I didn't consider is that the need for more fuel would make the rocket heavier which would make it need even more fuel.
 
Puppycow said:
"Don't let safety be the enemy of progress" sounds like something Stockton Rush would say.
Click to expand...
'would HAVE said'.....

He of course can't say anything, cause he's dead....

(a little less 'progress' and a little more safety might have been in order me thinks...)

From what I've seen of the starship design- its not really suited to 'either' the moon or Mars landings and I suspect that musk is (as usual) letting his mouth write cheques his brain can't cash...

A manned Mars mission is going to be a HUGE endeavour, and yes, likely VERY dangerous no matter how many precautions re taken- its longer and further (by far) than any previous manned mission- and by its nature, any 'rescue or repair' is going to have to be done by the crew themselves- they can't, they die- end of story....

Why a longterm moon mission should be done prior imho- its not unfeasible a rescue mission 'could' be done from earth in time in case something goes seriously wrong, and we still have no idea of the effects on the human body over the time scale of a Mars mission.... being stuck a year or two away from any possible rescue isn't the time to find out that 'corners were cut' in the design or assembly (something Tesla and musk have been criticised for before...) or that there's some longterm effect on the human body we didn't know about...
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Don't worry too much. I'm sure the process will be over when the uS beats Grand Fenwick to the Lunar surface.
Click to expand...
I read The Mouse on the Moon when I was young. My wife and I just watched the movie a few days ago. The film isn't as good as The Mouse That Roared, but is fun.

In the spirit of cooperation, the US (and USSR) give a small country support for developing a space program. The tiny country ends up beating the superpowers to the moon. Maybe Musk thinks of himself and SpaceX as the Grand Fenwick of Mars missions.

I really don't want going back to the moon to be just a political stunt. On the other hand, I want the US to do it while I am still around to watch.
 
I'm still waiting for someone to land on the moon the first time /sarcasm
 
Last edited:
Dabop said:
Why a longterm moon mission should be done prior imho- its not unfeasible a rescue mission 'could' be done from earth in time in case something goes seriously wrong, and we still have no idea of the effects on the human body over the time scale of a Mars mission.... being stuck a year or two away from any possible rescue isn't the time to find out that 'corners were cut' in the design or assembly (something Tesla and musk have been criticised for before...) or that there's some longterm effect on the human body we didn't know about...
Click to expand...
Those are all problems the ISS was ostensibly built to solve. Basically it has tried to be series of experiments in long-term space habitation including onsite repair and increased self-sustenance. Just like Project Gemini existed for no reason other than to rehearse lunar landing techniques, the ISS existed primarily to rehearse techniques for long-term human missions outside of Earth orbit. Now obviously the fact that the ISS crew can bail out at any time and return safely to Earth makes it the safe way to develop these techniques. A return to the Moon isn't going to be any more effective for rehearsing a Mars mission than building a new space station to replace the aging ISS. But it will make rescue harder.

Lunar missions make good demonstrators for SLS, assuming it survives Musk's axe. But I agree with the observation that Moon and Mars landings have markedly different operational requirements and are best addressed with specialized technology and techniques. A continued presence on the Moon should be pursued for its own ends, whatever we decide those should be. Science is cool, assuming the U.S. has any interest in it moving forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom