Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

RGClark · 2024-05-08 00:42:51

The major problem with NASA implementing Artemis to land on the Moon can be summed up in one sentence: they are still thinking of Artemis as like the Constellation program being “Apollo on steroids”. No, Constellation was much larger with a much larger launcher in the Ares V with plus an additional, separate launcher in the Ares I to get Orion to orbit. No, the correct way of thinking of Artemis is as comparable to Apollo in the sense of the size of its payload capacity and the fact the SLS also has to be used to get the Orion capsule to orbit. And actually on cost grounds you can consider it “better” than Apollo since it is CHEAPER than Apollo since in inflation adjusted dollars it’s about a quarter the program cost.

So, the problem is that in still thinking in “Apollo on Steroid” terms, the idea is retained the lander has to be these humongous landers like the Starship HLS or even the over-large Blue Origin lander. No, just think of the lander as being Apollo size, at ca. 13 ton gross mass of the Apollo LEM.

F1kBY_AWwAIH7D2?format=jpg&name=large
The right size for an Artemis lander(the one on the right.)
(Image credit Ken Kirtland.)

Then the lander doesn’t have to be some $10 to $20 billion development cost. It can be done for just a few hundred million dollars because the needed propulsive stage(s) and crew capsule already exist. You just have to ask our European partners for those components that already exist and are in operational status.

But the desire is to get Artemis to serve as the launcher for a continually occupied Moon base, a la how the ISS is for LEO. This is actually another sense of how Artemis, or more accurately the current space program in general, is “better” than Apollo. Back in the Apollo era NASA had to develop all the various launchers and stages and spacecraft from scratch, at great expense. But now, don’t think of the SLS or any of the over-large proposed landers to carry cargo to the Moon. Think of any of the several commercial orbital launchers for the purpose. The surprising conclusion you draw is that instead of using the $2 billion per launch SLS for cargo delivery at, at best, a once per year cadence, you can launch cargo to the Moon for costs at about the same as what we spend now to send cargo to the ISS, in the $100 million per launch range and on a weekly basis, by using commercial launchers and small, already existing stages as the landers.

See:

Possibilities for a single launch architecture of the Artemis missions.
https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2022/ … aunch.html

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2024-05-08 01:28:18)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-05-08 02:49:45

Landing a man on the moon before the end of the decade with Apollo but Artemis is 3 decades and more?

SLS might be done, a rocket declared extinct before it delivers all payloads, finsihed before it flies and another GAO report calls for more transparency. Europe/ESA can't save NASA they have their own problems and neither will the Japanese, forget about it. They say NASA's aspirational cost saving goals are highly unrealistic, cuts seem to arrive in the political climate. Maybe something else like MSR is likely to be cut, there are other commercial routes but the entire program is delayed so SpaceX, ULA, and Blue Origin have not delivered on time. As of this moment the SLS rocket program is the only rocket which performed a trans-lunar injection before releasing Orion, NASA officials however told the GAO that at current cost levels, the SLS program is unaffordable. Lori Garver, NASA’s former deputy administrator does not believe in the mission at all, she has talked of shipping the Moon and using Super-Heavy Lift for defending Earth against threatening asteroids and developing new propulsion technologies for the 21st century. She said that NASA decided, they would do it by their own self and thus the private sector although it potentially can deliver, Bezos and Musk had a lot less incentive to get it done quickly. On Artemis and Gateway and building a town on the Moon and using it to step to Mars she has said 'I do not see a realistic, sustainable path for this program'.

I think Artemis is already a political disaster, it has changed names but if you think about it it was born out of the mini-Bush vision but changed somewhat, even Bush had opened the door for commercialization. They will claim it is not the same goal as that set by 43rd President of the United States George W. Bush. This is still the Bush vision modified after the loss of Shuttle, Bush junior had a 'Global' idea, first fixing USA's space industry and sending the USA and this time the Western world back to the Moon, he gave NASA a new goal retire the Shuttle, finish the ISS and use the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars, launch all these other science missions while fighting wars on a number of fronts. Bush had looming recession and parts of it got cancelled, cut or modified first by Bush junior then by Obama or Trump who put their own stamp on 'Space Policy' yet the vision is almost the same, there seem to be a lot of politics placed on the program maybe rather than a White person they can have the first Moon Town founded by an islamic transexual person of color a cross between woman man like you see this quota at Hollywood Oscars, that's the political world we are in now.

There are agreements and accords signed but why would United States government and other world governments sign these complex deals with so many nations of radically different value, some partners are good and can provide tech for example Canada or Japan but the others Nigeria, Isle of Man, Ecuador, India, Rwanda? Why does NASA which can land Viking landers on Mars, build Skylab and sent probes beyond Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto need an islamist Sharia Law monarchy theocracy need to provide airlock for NASA's moon-orbiting Gateway space?
Let's look at possible delays on Earth today. If I order a product in the next 3 months in development in Canada or Germany or Japan or South Korea or France, maybe a Siemens medical software device, some Nintendo Sony Playstation thing about to be released, a French mototbike, or a South Korean digger, there is a good chance it will be manufactured on time and delivered to me on time. With world supply chains hammered and chaos and war in Arabia and shipping delayed in the Middle East what are the chances some jihadi kingdom of islamics will make an airlock or deliver that door to NASA on time?

It seems the experience of going to the Moon and experience of landing stuff on the Moon has been lost in the quest to have commercialization answer issues. Failure another Spacecraft Failure a partial failure, another Failure, Lunar Flashlight, Beresheet, EagleCam, LunaH-Map, the Japanese term Omotenashi, CubeSat for Solar Particles, Lunar IceCube, Hakuto-R, the Arab Rashid, Peregrine Mission One, these are all Lunar space junk or Earth space junk, Russia also had failure with Luna-25.
'Odysseus spacecraft on its side after landing on the moon, officials say'
Mankind is putting a lot of expensive broken space junk on the Moon.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/odysseu … -1.7123958

He said the lander had come in too fast and may have snapped a leg.

What are the chances someone signing an agreement won't deliver on time or a country just goes away and does its own thing, signs up with Russia or China? Brazil was on the ISS for a while, it has signed new 'Space Law' with NASA / USA joining the accords but its difficult to know where they will go next, they are now part of BRICS an intergovernmental organization offering an alternative route to Pax-Americana or Britannia or the EU comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. The USA has been trying to woo and seduce India but Hindu Nationalists play their own political game, they do their own thing including being involved in assassination inside Canada. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine sanctions were put, Japan and Australia and others are part of the Western alliance is you want to call it that, India does its own thing is willing to allow Russia to use a route to ships its oil and other commodity around the world. NASA can sign all these papers and treaty and deals and arrangements but some seem to work less well. In Europe in Asia two big players in robotic tech, the ESA and the Japanese they are ISS partners. SLS is simply too expensive, SpaceX proves the reusable launch system is the way to go the only others working on a similar system are the Chinese and there are a bunch of China companies which will be soon using inspired or knock off Space-X designs. The ESA supply spacecraft Automated Transfer Vehicle or ATV is interesting and so is the H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) also called Kounotori, it will be interesting to see what comes to supply the Moon. However for Lunar missions the Ariane and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries H-II or H-2 are of the old 'expendable' mindset, they were good for their time but it is a dinosaur philosophy.

If you really want to see what's wrong with it all Robert Zubrin's - Moon Direct talk and criticism of Gateway is a good start on what should be fixed.
What do we know from Apollo on fuel and payload and Delta V they say 6 km per second Δ v is useful.
How do you organize food and people and transport in place the size of Africa but not lush, no water, nothing to breathe, the full day night cycle 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes a long hot 2 week long daytime 250° Fahrenheit 120° Celsius or and a night that plummets to -208 degrees F -130° C, radioactive toxic world with no roads, no rail, no air, very rough and hazardous terrain, risk of death from solar flares and micro meteorites. Some people want to test 'Cars' on the Moon. The guys designing these Lunar cities they also admit Manufacture of rocket fuel from local resources is not possible on the Moon.
He has called Gateway an 'Orbital Toll Booth' offering minimum access to the surface with 'Maximum Risks'

Will the Moon get NASA or mankind to Mars? What amazing book of information does the Moon gives us on humans becoming Martians, terraforming the landscape and a Mars colony? Maybe Titan or Europa or Venus or any of the thousands of times cheaper of the Earth Analogues or going to Mars and getting a sample can teach you more about Mars.
For example on the Moon mission what will the Moon teach you about the Solar flux reach plants and animals in a Biodome on Mars, what does the Lunar mission teach you on Aerobraking the astronautical technique used to reduce the height of spacecraft orbits by allowing atmospheric drag to slow the spacecraft's velocity?
Does landing on the Moon consume more time, energy and money or does it really provide a stepping stone to Mars?

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-05-08 06:33:30)

tahanson43206 · 2024-05-08 06:37:10

For RGClark...

The post by Mars_B4_Moon comes across to me as having little (if anything) to do with your theme.

It seems to me it is another (rather long) argument that supports the idea that it might be wiser for the human race to try to reach Mars without having proven it's ability to land and live on the Moon.

If you have the time, and it the question is of interest, please review the post by Mars_B4_Moon to see if it has anything to do with the topic you introduced.

For all ... it seems to me there are very few reasons why Artemis might be "better" than Apollo, and RGClark had to really stretch to find one or two.

The list of reasons why Artemis is inferior to Apollo is probably much longer, and Mars_B4_Moon seems to have found several of them.

The key reason for the failure of Artemis was given in the post by Mars_B4_Moon .... the budget for the venture has been severely constrained. NASA leadership has had to try to complete a very difficult mission with a tight budget and without the fever pitch of National enthusiasm that Apollo enjoyed.

Best wishes for success with this topic.... you'll need it!

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-05-08 09:15:52

The Artemis program is (eventually) supposed to stage out of that Gateway station in the ridiculous halo orbit. This is because SLS Block 1 underperforms so badly that Orion cannot be placed in low lunar orbit with it, and get back out to come home. SLS/Orion actually can reach Gateway in that halo orbit.

But the 1-way dV to reach the surface (and back) from that halo orbit is well in excess of lunar surface escape speed at around 2.5 km/s, not the 1.8 to low orbit that Apollo had to provide. You have to provide that 2-way, plus budgets for rendezvous. And to be reusable, you have to do it in a single stage (Apollo's lander was 2-stage throwaway).

THAT is why gigantic things like SpaceX's Starship, and even the Blue Origin "Blue Moon" lander are so big! They have to do a whale of a lot more dV out of a single stage! Artemis landers will ALWAYS be far larger than Apollo landers. It is simply inherent in the specified mission, which is entirely NOT comparable to the Apollo lander's mission!

The Orion capsule is Apollo on steroids, being the same shape scaled up to hold a bigger crew, and enough life support expendables to serve for a time measured in a couple of months, not just a couple of weeks. By itself, it's biggest deficiency is the switch to a flawed heat shield design, instead of just using the Apollo design as-it-is. That's a serious NASA management mistake, once again demonstrating that they value schedule and costs above the safety of crew lives, and so learned NOTHING from killing 2 shuttle crews!

The other big deficiency is in Orion's service module. It is simply too small for a capsule of that mass. The Orion/SM cluster actually has less dV capability than the old Apollo CM/SM cluster. The deficient SLS block 1 can just barely get the deficient Orion/SM cluster to Gateway in that ridiculous halo orbit, with just barely enough "oomph" to come home again. THAT was the design requirement specified to the Europeans, and they met it. It's just the wrong design requirement for any practical exploration of the moon!

The change from Constellation with Aries 1 and Aries 5 to Artemis with the corporate-welfare-SLS is over 90% corporate welfare for "old space" and no more than about 10% actually trying to succeed at doing anything. THAT is why you now have a deficient government moon rocket, and why you have a deficient government capsule/service module cluster, and why that government now needs a gigantic lunar lander! And, THAT, more than anything else, is why this effort is many years behind, and many $billions over budget.

Where congressional budget politics gets into this is in Congress micromanaging NASA's objectives, when those politicians are technically incompetent to do so. They ONLY understand pork barrel stuff. They saddled us with corporate welfare for "old space", building repurposed shuttle stuff in the same districts of powerful members, for about 2 decades now, no matter what the NASA "objective" might be.

None of this makes any sort of technical sense at all. It just spends money to keep some giant corporation's income high, without requiring they actually accomplish anything. Why would anyone find that outcome surprising, considering the cluster-f'd way we-as-a-nation have approached this?

Sorry about the implied language, but it actually is the most precise way to describe the situation! Consider that before you condemn me for using it.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-05-08 09:30:33)

kbd512 · 2024-05-08 10:54:33

NASA not having to pay very much for Starship development is probably the most significant reason why it was selected as a contender for their lunar lander. Assuming that SpaceX makes their multiple orbital refueling operational concept work, then NASA looks like geniuses for purchasing a very cheap lander which didn't require a decade of development nor billions of additional tax dollars spent. All of this grumbling over why Starship was selected becomes an academic matter after SpaceX makes it work. No other lander system can deliver nearly as much payload for the same money spent.

NASA and Space Force also get a fully reusable vehicle capable of rapid reflight from Starship development. Nobody else has anything like that, so it provides an as-yet-unmatched strategic capability with significant military implications. Said vehicle could fly a depressed hypersonic trajectory to land 500 additional troops at a forward staging area. Being able to move a battalion of troops half way across the planet, using one or two flights, with mere hours of notice, is something no other military is remotely capable of doing. Such a movement presently takes around 72 hours, minimum. This is obviously not germane to the Artemis program, but it would be something NASA likely considers an important "anytime space access" capability. NASA and DoD are willing to pay dearly to acquire that capability, but SpaceX appears poised to give it to them for mere peanuts, compared to what Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, or Northrop-Grumman would charge.

If NASA intends to land heavy payloads, such as radiation protected vehicles and habitation modules, then they're going to need Starship. Doing that, so astronauts can live on the moon for at least 6 months, similar to how they already live aboard ISS, would actually prove that we can live on another planet over the long term, and then we really are ready to go live on Mars. Since the Earth is much closer if anything does go significantly wrong, it's a far less risky approach that allows for mistakes to be made during the learning process, with greatly reduced risks of catastrophic consequences. NASA has become a very risk-averse organization, so this makes reasonably good sense to me, not that I always agree with the approach taken.

All that said, I actually think Dr Clark may be onto something here. Vulcain 2.1 is essentially a J-2X engine performance equivalent, so a single known reliable engine attached to a much more powerful LOX/LH2 upper stage could become what Congress ultimately wants SLS to become- a Saturn V equivalent using STS-like hardware.

Think about it. The SLS core stage makes it all the way to orbit, as-is. From there, they have a modernized Staturn-V upper stage with bettr specific impulse, lighter materials, a smaller but still roomier and more capable Dragon Rider capsule, and a modernized but more capable lander that uses LOX/LH2 propulsion and ZBO to significantly improve upon what Apollo was capable of. Modern materials and engines can do that for us. A Dragon capsule atop the ESA Orion Service Module would have full Apollo capsule capabilities, with more interior volume, same endurance, and that frees up mass for a hefty lander with lots of pressurized volume.

Starship would still provide cargo and upper stages for large surface habitation module delivery, a role it's presently far more suitable for filling than landing on the moon. ULA could try out their lunar crasher stage concept wherein a habitation module starts its life as a propellant module, and is then used for surface habitation after all the propellant is expended to both get where its going and soft land, with furnishings and life support equipment provided by the larger lander from the SLS launch.

This would provide real "meat and potatoes" for everyone involved, but in a way that advances the "let's live on another planet, long-term" agenda, rather than weird program additions such as the Lunar Gateway, which are of questionable utility for actually living on the moon or Mars.

NASA / ROSCOSMOS - launch coordination, launch pads and infrastructure, personnel training (assumes we're still working with the Russians, maybe a stretch goal at this point)
Boeing / Lockheed-Martin - SLS crew delivery, potential Lunar Gateway construction (if we can explain why we need it for surface habitation)
Northrop-Grumman / Raytheon - satellite refueling capability, electric propulsion, communications and sensors, etc
SpaceX - Lightweight exploration class crew capsules and inexpensive fully reusable super heavy lift cargo-to-orbit
ESA / ArianeSpace / Airbus - Service Modules / Vulcain 2.X upper stage propulsion units for SLS
BWXT - Nuclear power and propulsion, for the time when in-space power and propulsion becomes a significant limiting factor
Everyone else - bits of scientific or operational equipment that they can reasonably develop and furnish for upcoming missions
Everyone involved - engineering expertise, hardware fabrication, other nations also supply personnel for the exploration and habitation missions

RGClark · 2024-05-08 15:10:54

tahanson43206 wrote:

For RGClark...
The post by Mars_B4_Moon comes across to me as having little (if anything) to do with your theme.
It seems to me it is another (rather long) argument that supports the idea that it might be wiser for the human race to try to reach Mars without having proven it's ability to land and live on the Moon.
If you have the time, and it the question is of interest, please review the post by Mars_B4_Moon to see if it has anything to do with the topic you introduced.
For all ... it seems to me there are very few reasons why Artemis might be "better" than Apollo, and RGClark had to really stretch to find one or two.
The list of reasons why Artemis is inferior to Apollo is probably much longer, and Mars_B4_Moon seems to have found several of them.
The key reason for the failure of Artemis was given in the post by Mars_B4_Moon .... the budget for the venture has been severely constrained. NASA leadership has had to try to complete a very difficult mission with a tight budget and without the fever pitch of National enthusiasm that Apollo enjoyed.
Best wishes for success with this topic.... you'll need it!
(th)

He argues Artemis is unsustainable and will be cancelled. There are some high ticket items still upcoming in the pipeline. The landers still need to be paid for, then the larger Boeing EUS upper stage, then the advanced carbon fiber side boosters, then NASA still wants to build the Gateway. I can’t argue that Artemis is not expensive but looking at the inflation-adjusted dollars it is cheaper than Apollo.

But there is a commercial space approach to cutting the costs of the lander. In commercial space, the development costs are privately funded. This is what I have been arguing for in regards to the lander. Then no billions to SpaceX or Blue Origin for their landers. Following this approach the Gateway is also no longer needed, so those billions are cut. And under this approach lander missions can be done also without the advanced carbon fiber SRB’s so those billions are cut.

There is the issue of the Boeing EUS, though. It would be great if NASA would use the Ariane 5/6 core for the purpose instead. That would increase the payload capacity and save development cost. Then those billions would be cut. But the opinion is it appears politically untenable to give this American contract to a European company instead.

Still, even if we have to retain the Boeing EUS, we can get significant cost savings by using a small, Apollo-sized, commercial, i.e., privately-financed, lander.

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2024-05-09 07:04:21)

RGClark · 2024-05-08 16:25:38

The idea Artemis is “better” than Apollo on cost grounds comes from this assessment of Apollo’s costs in inflation-adjusted dollars:

How much did the Apollo program cost?
https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo

The max expenditure in a single year was ca. $45 billion in 2020 dollars. And the total cost of the lunar lander alone was ca. $20 billion in 2020 dollars.

But how much cheaper Artemis is than Apollo exemplifies another key advantage we have now over Apollo that we must make use of: the plentiful commercial launchers, in-space stages, and spacecraft already operational and in regular use.

Then USE that advantage. Construct your lander, small like Apollos, from EXISTING components, not developing the lander from scratch. Knowledgeable observers of the space program are aware of the fact development costs for entirely new systems from scratch incur ballooning costs.

There are multiple ways of following this approach.

Here’s one:
Possibilities for a single launch architecture of the Artemis missions, Page 3: Saving the lander mission for Artemis III.
https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2023/ … ch_11.html

Bob Clark

GW Johnson · 2024-05-09 14:03:37

It may not be fair to compare spending on a nationally-mandated "crash" program (Apollo) to the ones that are funded, but not mandated to be crash programs, the corporate welfare that produced SLS/Orion to be used for Artemis, and Artemis itself.

GW

RGClark · 2024-05-09 22:15:01

To make the cost comparison between Artemis and Apollo more clear, the total cost of Artemis so far is ca. $50 billion:

The Cost of SLS and Orion.
From its inception in 2011 through the year of its first flight, the Space Launch System rocket program has cost $23.8 billion. The Orion deep space capsule has cost $20.4 billion since the program began in 2006. Related ground infrastructure upgrades cost an additional $5.7 billion since 2012. In total, NASA spent $49.9 billion on these programs between 2006 and their first test launch in 2022.
https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/ … -and-orion

Compare this to the Apollo costs:

How much did the Apollo program cost?
The United States spent $25.8 billion on Project Apollo between 1960 and 1973, or approximately $257 billion when adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars. Adding Project Gemini and the robotic lunar program, both of which enabled Apollo, the U.S. spent a total of $28 billion ($280 billion adjusted). Spending peaked in 1966, three years before the first Moon landing. The total amount spent on NASA during this period was $49.4 billion ($482 billion adjusted).
https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo

The state of the space program in general now means we can use already existing assets to make our lander. Using already existing assets saves greatly on development costs.

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2024-05-09 22:16:49)

SpaceNut · 2024-05-10 16:05:15

If Nasa is going to use a capsule for the moon, I think it should look at modifying the starliner at least long enough to do the same test of the moon loop to see how well it would stad up as we are not going in a starship either for the timetable that Nasa has in its plans.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-05-15 13:22:12

Let's be real about the budget, there is no 'Race' to beat Russia/Soviets to the Moon anymore the 60s are over and those budgets have not come back, Clinton cut it and Nixon really cut it.

Now if something political happened, a hypothetical event, China starts flying men around the Moon, the Chinese blast Venus with some weird microwave thing and start Terraforming or Chinese beam energy from space or China gets a space sample returned from Mars before NASA, maybe the public would wake up and demand more spending. However right now the news media and the public have this perception too much is spent on space.

In the 1960s spending went as high as 4.4% of the Federal Budget, today it is less than half of one single percent % of the Fed Budget

SLS is launching, it is the only one successfully putting those massive payloads out there but why the $4-5 billion per launch cost

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-05-15 13:33:11)

SpaceNut · 2024-05-15 17:30:51

Artemis 2 astronauts simulated a day in the life on their moon mission. Here's what they learned (exclusive)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-05-17 04:18:52

Another thing to consider at this moment the Sun is blasting out X-9 class flares

Some posters here on newmars have put in writing they do not think the Sheilding is Adequate for the Lunar missions and Gateway? and also Cosmic rays can be divided into two types: galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and extragalactic cosmic rays

I am not totally against the Moon missions, a type of spider crawling robo climber Spelunking Caver robot proven to work on the Lunar surface for example could be very useful for Mars

kbd512 wrote:

NASA / ROSCOSMOS - launch coordination, launch pads and infrastructure, personnel training (assumes we're still working with the Russians, maybe a stretch goal at this point)

The political sanctions are complex since the Russian invasion of Ukraine

What sanctions has the EU adopted so far?
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/poli … explained/

EU has imposed massive and unprecedented sanctions against Russia.

I think most of Europe, the EU or ESA nations have hit them with tough sanctions but maybe not Switzerland, French Guiana sanctions by default being a colony of France, Canada has embargo or sanctions on Russian products, South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand.
European Commission,followed by the United States, decided to suspend cooperation with Russian entities in research, science and innovation.
https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/2022/us-restric … ons-russia

The U.S. is sunsetting research collaborations with Russia in response to its war against Ukraine, joining a coalition of countries that have already moved to restrict ties with research institutions affiliated with the Russian government.

The British are outside the EU now since Brexit but they have taken a position similar sanctions to the USA, the EU, Canada and Australia, Boris Johnson announced that all major Russian banks would have their assets frozen and be excluded from the UK financial system, restrictions on goods, products boycotted and embargoes, the British announced the closure of its airspace to Russian airlines, some aircraft started routing flights to Asia over the North Pole some have gone down to a long route The Mediterranean, Africa / Egypt to avoid Ukraine, Belarus and the Middle East and Russian banks were banned. There are also a bunch of angry people who might culturally take a long time to forgive what Russia has done bombing food supplies.

Russian tech and experience seems to be going backwards, Luna-25 was a failure

also Russia is having internal politically struggles, a loss of freedom, Putin arresting his own people

are these arrests legitimate? who is truly stealing the money

'Russia Space Agency Official Held Over Multi-million Euro Fraud'
https://www.barrons.com/news/russia-spa … d-3ca6dc8f

Even if the USA decided it might somehow politically lift sanctions partnership countries like Canada or Japan might continue to refuse to work with the Russians.

It is true that only a Western group of nations have political sanctions on Russia, all those other Artemis Accords arrangement states Latin America, India, African countries, the Sharia Law Arab monarchies continue to do business with Russians, some of them even refused to condemn the attacks and made vague neutral or Pro-Russian statements about the war.

the Russians might find a way to put a robot back on the Moon yet, piggy back on ISRO flying on an Indian rocket?

and something more positive

Artemis astronauts will carry plants to the moon in 2026
https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-3-pl … iment-moon

but again there would be debate on this saying Earth based Planetary Analogs are more effective, far more cheaper while Mars has a similar 24 and a half hour day

my opinion is if they are going to the Moon anyways with Artemis, so they have to figure out how to grow stuff and stuff that grows inside a Lunar greenhouse structure can probably grow on Mars.

and international effort

Mitsubishi Electric Wins Contract to Supply Space-use Lithium-ion Batteries for "Gateway" Lunar Orbital Platform
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mitsubis … 00986.html

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-05-17 05:41:47)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2024-05-08 00:42:51

Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#2 2024-05-08 02:49:45

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#3 2024-05-08 06:37:10

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#4 2024-05-08 09:15:52

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#5 2024-05-08 10:54:33

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#6 2024-05-08 15:10:54

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#7 2024-05-08 16:25:38

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#8 2024-05-09 14:03:37

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#9 2024-05-09 22:15:01

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#10 2024-05-10 16:05:15

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#11 2024-05-15 13:22:12

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#12 2024-05-15 17:30:51

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#13 2024-05-17 04:18:52

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

Board footer