You are not logged in.
My take on NASA: they've lost the vision necessary to get down to basics. Everything they are doing violates the KISS principle. Bob Zubrin sees this and despairs that no one listens to voices of reason. Solution: we now have 2 major New Space contractors lining up to do great things; Blue Origin should be given a Moon Mission contract, and SpaceX a major Mars Mission contract. NASA sits there and trains astronauts, designs rovers, habitats, power systems, and buys the rides from the talent pool. See? That didn't hurt a bit!
Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2019-01-05 00:36:44)
Offline
NASA wants to be a technology development catalyst rather than a driver of mission requirements that's only interested in doing missions and allowing their contractors to handle the details without artificial constraints placed upon them. However, they're also hampered by the inane demands of the people who fund them. They've become a political toy for Congress and the President to play with, rather than a semi-independent space exploration agency with government oversight. You're correct, though. It's sad to watch. Fortunately, our government unwittingly did something useful for everyone by providing initial funding to SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, etc.
Offline
The companies which build rockets is larger that those which need updating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s … ufacturers
with many just specializing in tech areas and its New Space companies that seem to be leading
Offline
Well the anniversary has come and we are not on the way yet and have not anyone on the moon...
Nasa Epic Fail comes to mind....
There again Space x seems to have backed out of its deal as well.
Offline
NASA should lead humanity’s return to the Moon
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01250-9
Powering the moon: Designing a microgrid for future lunar base
https://phys.org/news/2022-05-powering- … nar-1.html
Towards more efficient, non-toxic, and flexible thin-film solar cells
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/952487
Precious Payload acquires HOSTmi to fast-track the rise of the European commercial space industry
http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=60155
The $93-billion plan to put astronauts back on the Moon
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01253-6
Scientists grow plants in lunar dirt, next stop moon
https://apnews.com/article/space-explor … 75b98e9c47
The downside was that after the first week, the coarseness and other properties of the lunar soil stressed the small, flowering weeds so much that they grew more slowly than seedlings planted in fake moon dirt from Earth. Most of the moon plants ended up stunted.
'The longer the soil was exposed to punishing cosmic radiation and solar wind on the moon, the worse the plants seemed to do. The Apollo 11 samples — exposed a couple billion years longer to the elements because of the Sea of Tranquility’s older surface — were the least conducive for growth, according to scientists. '
Astronaut Compares the SpaceX, NASA and Russian Spacecraft He’s Flown In
https://futurism.com/the-byte/astronaut … russia-iss
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-05-12 10:10:24)
Online
looks like we will miss it as NASA’s Planned 2025 Moon Landing ‘Unlikely’ Amid SpaceX And Spacesuit Delays, Report Warns
Delays by Space X and Axiom in developing key pieces of technology, an already ambitious schedule and the postponement of several test flights mean NASA's plan to put astronauts on the moon in 2025 is “unrealistic” and a 2027 launch is more likely for the long-anticipated Artemis III mission, the Government Accountability Office said in a new report.
NASA awarded a $228.5 million contract to Axiom Space for the spacesuits, and SpaceX was initially given an $2.9 billion contract in April to build the landing system before winning a second, $1.15 billion contract option last November to help fly a second crewed mission.
Offline
looks like we will miss it as NASA’s Planned 2025 Moon Landing ‘Unlikely’ Amid SpaceX And Spacesuit Delays, Report Warns
Delays by Space X and Axiom in developing key pieces of technology, an already ambitious schedule and the postponement of several test flights mean NASA's plan to put astronauts on the moon in 2025 is “unrealistic” and a 2027 launch is more likely for the long-anticipated Artemis III mission, the Government Accountability Office said in a new report.
NASA awarded a $228.5 million contract to Axiom Space for the spacesuits, and SpaceX was initially given an $2.9 billion contract in April to build the landing system before winning a second, $1.15 billion contract option last November to help fly a second crewed mission.
Likely, Artemis II will slip into 2025:
Marcia Smith
@SpcPlcyOnline
Not an official statement by any means, but at the Galloway Symposium luncheon just now, NASA astronaut Randy Bresnik commented in passing that the Artemis II crew likely will launch in 2025. [not 2024]
12:49 PM · Dec 13, 2023 · 35.2K Views
https://twitter.com/spcplcyonline/statu … 8174378017
Given the most likely cadence of an SLS launch every 2 years, 2027 is most likely for Artemis III.
Robert Clark
Old Space rule of acquisition (with a nod to Star Trek - the Next Generation):
“Anything worth doing is worth doing for a billion dollars.”
Offline
I pretty much agree, Bob. Artemis isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
NASA was betting on SpaceX being immediately successful with Starship/Superheavy, knowing that SLS could never shoulder the whole program, being way too expensive to use more than very occasionally.
But, even SpaceX has run into troubles and delays making Starship/Superheavy work. We've all seen it. They are gaining ground in their flight tests, but are wasting tests and schedule time by flying without fixing known problems first. "Fly it, break it, fix it, fly again" really does have practical limits, and you get into all sorts of trouble if you ignore them.
I think they can make it work, but I have been warning for some years now about the differences between "Musk time" and "actual time".
GW
update 12-20-23: fixed 2 typos so that "fly it, break it, fix it, fly again" reads correctly
Last edited by GW Johnson (2023-12-20 10:19:28)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
better late than never.
U.S. plans return to moon with an international astronaut by 2030
Offline
SLS cadence of 1 launch every 2 years? And some corporate executives in Old Space companies think this is acceptable. I remind everyone that Shuttle was designed for 50 launches per year, and supporting space centers were built for that cadence. The expense of those centers at only 6 launches per year, 4 in the end, made every launch prohibitively expensive. SLS was designed to keep former Shuttle staff employed. And they think 1 every 2 years is acceptable?
SpaceX Starship can lift more. And to make matters worse, SLS block 2 was the one with lift mass comparable to Saturn V. Block 2 hasn't been built, and I haven't seen any announcement of any progress or any timeline to doing so.
Numbers
Saturn V: 118 tonnes to LEO, or 45.2 tonnes to TLI (Apollo 15-17, not including 3rd stage)
SLS block 1: 95t to LEO, or 27t to TLI
SLS block 1B: 105t to LEO, or 38t to TLI (crew)
SLS block 2: 130t to LEO, or 43t to TLI (crew)
Falcon Heavy: 63.8t to LEO, 26.7t to TMI (Mars)
Starship: 150 tonnes to LEO (fully recoverable)
Offline
better late than never.
U.S. plans return to moon with an international astronaut by 2030
Is that Artemis III or Artemis IV?
Bob Clark
Old Space rule of acquisition (with a nod to Star Trek - the Next Generation):
“Anything worth doing is worth doing for a billion dollars.”
Offline