Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Is pork barrel politics why it costs so much? Making sure that all 50 states get some piece of the action?
Artemis (NASA moon mission)
- Thread starter Puppycow
- Start date
Xelon Xmusk Grumble... Grumble... Grumble...
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
I meant Checkmite's article about SLS.
NASA announces delay of its Artemis moon missions until 2025, 2026
No great surprise there. The Artemis program seems valuable and has scientific merit but it also seems to be very badly affected by crony capitalism.
I'm guessing that there will be further delays and they might be significant.
No great surprise there. The Artemis program seems valuable and has scientific merit but it also seems to be very badly affected by crony capitalism.
I'm guessing that there will be further delays and they might be significant.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Sorry, I don't see the connection. Can you explain it to me?
The Space Launch System is obscenely expensive - at least $2.5 billion per launch with some estimates at higher than $4 billion per launch for a $/kg cost nearly 10x compared to other in-use launch vehicles. At that rate they'll be able to do a maximum of one launch per year. More likely it will be one launch every two years or even more infrequent.
The whole program is designed around jobs-to-congressional-districts.
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
In the Grauniad article they state of the SpaceX rockets: "Two flights have launched successfully but blown up at altitude". Given that neither flight even managed to fulfil a single goal and the first one failed to successfully clear the pad that quoted sentence is a blatant mistruth.
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
Well, it's certainly an unusual use of the word "successfully."
I don't think I have to go far out on a limb to predict these:
1. A successful Artemis human landing mission won't happen in 2026, 2027, 2028 or 2029. Indeed it may never happen.
2. Even if it does happen, China will get humans there before we do. They don't concern themselves as much about cost, safety and comfort.
3. Elon Musk won't be a part of it.
I don't think I have to go far out on a limb to predict these:
1. A successful Artemis human landing mission won't happen in 2026, 2027, 2028 or 2029. Indeed it may never happen.
2. Even if it does happen, China will get humans there before we do. They don't concern themselves as much about cost, safety and comfort.
3. Elon Musk won't be a part of it.
One of the two in-development lunar landers is a modification of the SpaceX Starship, as is part of the "Lunar Gateway". They may also use Falcon Heavy to launch a lunar cargo version of the Dragon capsules to supply the gateway.
The SLS costs about 10x per launch compared to each of the Starship's two tests so far. Assuming that Starship can get it right within eight more launches, their development cost will be the same as SLS. If they get it right in less than eight launches, they may come in with development costs lower than SLS.
Elon Musk is a stain on humanity's underwear, but SpaceX is here to stay as a major player in the western world's space programs for good reason.
What probability do you give each of those outcomes? For instance, would you say the chances of no successful Artemis human landing mission by 2029 are 90%? 75%? How about China being first, 80% chance?
I assume by "Elon Musk won't be a part of it" you mean that a human landing on the moon won't fly on a SpaceX rocket. Again, what probability to do you assign there?
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
The issue is that putting a person on the moon then bringing them back safely to earth is a very expensive, high risk operation. One where there are no experts. They need to build rockets that are far more powerful than other rockets. This is very hard to do. And the rockets cannot be used for other purposes.
Why bother?
Why bother sending humans? That was the only alternative in the 20th century. But now we have these things called robots that can do 99% of what humans can do (in terms of exploration) and don't need food, water or protection from the rigors of space. And so a robot mission would be almost as good in terms of science as one with humans and would be vastly cheaper. The human part is just basically useless window dressing.
Why bother sending humans? That was the only alternative in the 20th century. But now we have these things called robots that can do 99% of what humans can do (in terms of exploration) and don't need food, water or protection from the rigors of space. And so a robot mission would be almost as good in terms of science as one with humans and would be vastly cheaper. The human part is just basically useless window dressing.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Well it just so happens that Tesla is working on those. I bet they will soon become good enough that the plans change slightly - robots will build the needed infrastructure before putting men on the Moon and Mars. This will become a no-brainer once they realize how much cheaper (and more expendable) a robot workforce will be. They are probably already making plans for it.
BTW there's talk of Tesla using robots in their car factories too - not just the pre-programmed 'robot' arms that are currently used, but real humanoid type robots to replace people. The trade unions will go nuts!
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Once they decide to put people back on the moon they will live in caves and direct operations from there. The advantage of having people on the moon rather than Earth is that the delay between an instruction going out and being received is much less from a cave on the moon.
They will need to live in caves to avoid radiation from the Sun, other stars, and black holes as well.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No. It was the stated goal in the 20th century. The unmanned Surveyor spacecraft had previously soft-landed on the Moon. There were alternatives, but manned exploration was the dramatic stretch goal that Kennedy wanted to express.
Yes, there is a strong argument for automated exploration. But then again, anyone can see pictures of the Eiffel Tower. Standing underneath it and experiencing it fully is another experience. Humans have a desire to go places and see things. And yes, you can make the argument that having human eyes and a human brain on site are scientifically advantageous. But it's not really the point. Exploration is not about data acquisition.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Humans will go to space because we want to and we can. No other reason is necessary.
And the cost isn't that great. The portion of the taxes I pay that go to NASA's budget is less than going a few nights out to dinner. Just in entertainment value, it is worth it to me. The development of new technologies benefits all of us and the money doesn't go into space. It stays here on earth creating high-tech jobs. Manned exploration also inspires many to pursue careers in science and engineering.
Human spaceflight will also lead to more robotic missions. Robots will be sent to the moon then Mars to support the manned missions. If the manned missions were cancelled, I doubt the money saved would go to robotic missions.
And, if humans are put in orbit around Mars, they could guide rovers in real-time and explore more of the surface in a short time than all of the previous missions have explored.
Plus, eventuality our planet will suffer a natural disaster or man-made event where the survival of our species will depend on being able to live elsewhere.
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
Sorry, that's just ridiculously wrong. Sure, neither flight fulfilled all their goals, but they achieved many.
The first flight not only cleared the pad but achieved considerable altitude. First stage engine failures prevented reaching staging velocity.
The second flight had no first stage engine failures and achieved staging. It also successfully demonstrated the improved pad systems to prevent all the damage of the first time.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
I like to say that the rocket fulfilled all of its mission goals except one.
That one being not exploding upon landing.
That one being not exploding upon landing.
