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)

SpaceNut · 2025-09-21 15:38:16

NASA’s mega moon rocket gets key upgrades for upcoming crewed mission

NASA is gearing up to send its first astronauts toward the moon in five decades.
The Artemis II mission is currently set for early next year and will use NASA’s next-generation SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft.
Although none of the four crew members will be stepping foot on the lunar surface, they will come The much-anticipated mission will take about 10 days from launch to splashdown, making it 15 days shorter than the uncrewed Artemis I mission in 2022 that operated as a test run for Artemis II.
NASA has just shared an update on its preparations for Artemis II, focusing on some of the improvements made to the SLS rocket and the Orion since the Artemis I mission.
As with the SLS rocket’s first flight three years ago, the 322-feet-tall (98-meter) still comprises a central core stage, four RS-25 main engines, two five-segment solid rocket boosters, the ICPS (interim cryogenic propulsion stage), a launch vehicle stage adapter to hold the ICPS, and an Orion stage adapter connecting SLS to the Orion spacecraft.
NASA said that as the SLS rocket heads skyward next year, it will jettison the spent boosters four seconds earlier than it did in the Artemis I ascent. Dropping the boosters a little earlier will reduce the weight that the core stage needs to carry after booster separation. The saved weight should allow the rocket to carry more cargo or heavier payloads to space, and the Artemis II flight will allow engineers to compare data to confirm their calculations.as close as 4,000 miles (around 6,440 km) of it before flying around the moon and returning home.
The SLS rocket’s maiden flight in the Artemis I mission experienced unsteady airflow that caused higher-than-expected vibrations near the solid rocket booster attachment points, and so NASA has added a pair of six-foot-long aerodynamic surfaces for a smoother ascent.
Upgrades to the flight system include optical targets fitted to the ICPS that will function as visual cues for the four Orion astronauts when they come to manually pilot the spacecraft around the rocket’s upper stage, at the same time practicing maneuvers to gather data for docking operations for the future Artemis III mission. During that mission, which is currently set for 2027, the Orion will link up with SpaceX’s Starship spacecraft for a crewed lunar landing — the first since 1972.
The rocket’s navigation system has also been enhanced — alongside improvements to its communications capabilities — by repositioning antennas on the rocket to ensure continuous communication with NASA personnel on Earth.
Notably, the emergency abort system has been refined to add a time delay to the self-destruct sequence. This will give the Orion and its crew more time to move clear of the rocket in the event of an abort, better protecting the astronauts from any destructive actions that occur soon after.
Other improvements include work on the core stage power distribution control unit, which controls power to the rocket’s other electronics and protects it from electrical hazards.
“While we’re proud of our Artemis I performance, which validated our overall design, we’ve looked at how SLS can give our crews a better ride,” said John Honeycutt, NASA’s SLS program manager.
Honeycutt added that some of the changes have been made in response to specific Artemis II mission requirements, while others are the result of ongoing analysis and testing, as well as insights gained from the Artemis I voyage.
he Artemis II crew includes NASA’s Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, and Christina Koch, together with Jeremy Hansen of the Canadian Space Agency. The four astronauts have been in training since they were announced as the Artemis II crew in 2023.

SpaceNut · 2025-09-23 17:17:52

AA1N91P3.img?w=768&h=1172&m=6

Nasa plans first crewed Moon mission in 50 years for February

AA1N94pD.img?w=768&h=1728&m=6

SpaceNut · 2025-09-23 17:20:44

The Orion capsule's mass varies, with a fully loaded mass of over 20 tonnes (44,000 lbs) for Artemis V, including a 13,500 kg European Service Module (ESM) and 8,600 kg of propellant. After its separation from the SLS rocket, Orion is expected to have a mass of approximately 26,375 kg.
Orion Spacecraft - Key Mass Specifications
Total Orion Launch Mass:
Over 20 tonnes (44,000 lbs)
Mass After SLS Separation (example):
Approximately 26,375 kg (58,147 lbs)
Crew Module Launch Weight (example):
22,900 lbs
Service Module Launch Weight (example):
34,085 lbs
Total Mass on Earth with Fuel (example):
10,000 kg for Lunar View refuelling module
Breakdown by Component (Example - Artemis V):
European Service Module (ESM):
Total launch mass: 13,500 kg
Propellant: 8,600 kg
Potable water: 240 kg
Oxygen: 90 kg
Nitrogen: 30 kg
Factors Influencing Mass
Mission Profile:
Mass specifications change between missions (e.g., Artemis I vs. Artemis II) due to varying propellant loads.
Payload:
Any additional cargo or equipment carried by the capsule will contribute to its overall mass.
Mission Duration:
A longer duration in space requires more supplies, increasing the mass of the service module and, consequently, the overall Orion spacecraft

he Artemis program's Orion capsule has a life support system (ECLSS) that is primarily limited by the amount of onboard consumables it can carry. The maximum endurance for a four-person crew is 21 days in a standalone mission. This limitation is tied to the design of the capsule itself, though its endurance can be significantly extended by docking with other spacecraft.
Standalone mission limitations
Duration: The Orion capsule is designed to support a crew of four for up to 21 days for missions that do not dock with another habitat.
Consumables: The 21-day limit is due to the fixed amount of food, water, oxygen, and nitrogen stored within the capsule.
Carbon dioxide and humidity: The system uses a regenerable carbon dioxide and humidity removal system, which is an advancement over the Apollo-era technology. However, the efficiency of this system is critical, and a design flaw identified in 2023 with the Atmosphere Revitalization System circuitry had to be addressed to prevent potential high levels of carbon dioxide.
Waste management: Storage capacity for human waste is another constraint on the total mission duration.
Docked mission capabilities
While a standalone Orion can only support its crew for a few weeks, its life support capabilities can be extended when it is connected to a larger habitat or module.
Lunar Gateway: When docked to a future habitat like the Lunar Gateway, Orion can support a crew for up to six months while its own systems are in a quiescent, or standby, mode. The Gateway will provide the additional consumables and robust life support needed for longer lunar missions.
Potential for Mars missions: Orion's subsystems were designed with flexibility in mind and could theoretically be integrated into a larger transport system for a future mission to Mars, potentially lasting up to 1,000 days. In such a scenario, the primary life support would be handled by other modules, and Orion would serve as the crew transport and safe-haven.
Emergency and redundancy
The life support system is built with redundancy and backup capabilities to ensure crew safety during a critical event.
Spacesuits: In the event of a cabin depressurization, the crew can survive for several days in their pressurized Crew Survival System (CSS) spacesuits, allowing for a return to Earth.
System redundancy: The ECLSS is designed with redundancy to keep critical systems functioning if a single component fails

SpaceNut · 2025-10-09 17:26:47

Artemis II is finally set to depart Earth by April of 2026. It will bring four astronauts to the moon for a 10-day mission. The goal is to do a lunar flyby to test the Orion spacecraft and make sure it is functioning optimally and potentially address any issues that might come up. This work is critical to build on the foundation for future Artemis missions, ensuring future safety and success.

Artemis III. Right now the goal is a mid-2027 launch. It will be another crew of four, but this time, the mission will last about a month and the crew will land on the moon. They will be going to the South Pole region of the moon and stay there for about a week.

SpaceNut · 2025-10-18 17:05:52

NASA and Lockheed may launch Orion on new rockets are now exploring the possibility of launching Orion on rockets other than the Space Launch System (SLS).
Thats quite the about face.

This consideration marks a significant shift from previous plans, driven by ongoing challenges with the SLS program. The exploration of commercial launch vehicles for future missions could potentially reshape NASA’s approach to deep-space exploration.
Lockheed Martin has been the developer of Orion since 2006, making specific engineering decisions to ensure the spacecraft’s compatibility exclusively with the SLS. This included considerations of the spacecraft’s size and propulsion interfaces, which were tailored to fit the SLS specifications. The early assumptions of the Artemis program, starting in 2019, further cemented this relationship, with budget allocations exceeding $20 billion for SLS development through 2025, reinforcing the expectation that Orion would launch solely on SLS for lunar missions.
Potential Alternative Launch Vehicles
SpaceX’s Starship emerges as a leading candidate for launching Orion, given its successful test flights in 2025 and its impressive payload capacity exceeding 100 metric tons to low Earth orbit. NASA has already invested $2.9 billion in a Starship lunar lander variant, indicating a strong interest in leveraging SpaceX’s capabilities for future missions. This investment reflects the agency’s willingness to consider commercial partners as viable alternatives to the SLS.
Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket, scheduled for its debut in late 2025 from Cape Canaveral, presents another potential option. With the capability to handle Orion’s 26-metric-ton mass and a payload capacity of up to 45 metric tons to low Earth orbit, New Glenn could offer a viable alternative for launching Orion. The introduction of New Glenn into the market could further diversify NASA’s launch options, enhancing the agency’s ability to meet its exploration goals.
Additionally, United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan Centaur, operational since 2024, offers a medium-lift option that could be paired with upper stages for Orion missions. Backed by NASA’s $5.6 billion in national security launch contracts, Vulcan Centaur represents a reliable and tested alternative. These potential launch vehicles provide NASA with a range of options to consider as it seeks to optimize its Artemis program and achieve its exploration objectives.
Implications for NASA’s Artemis Program
Adopting alternative rockets could significantly accelerate the timelines for the Artemis program, potentially enabling crewed lunar landings by 2027 instead of 2028 under the current SLS constraints. Lockheed Martin is leading adaptation studies to explore these possibilities, highlighting the potential for more efficient mission planning and execution. This shift could also result in substantial cost savings, reducing per-launch expenses from SLS’s $4 billion to under $1 billion on commercial vehicles, while still preserving Orion’s role in the 10 planned Artemis missions through 2035.
However, transitioning to new launch vehicles is not without risks. Certification processes for new vehicle pairings, including FAA and NASA safety reviews, are expected to take 18-24 months starting in 2026. These reviews are crucial to ensuring the safety and reliability of the new launch configurations, but they also introduce potential delays and uncertainties into the program’s timeline. Balancing these risks with the potential benefits will be a key consideration for NASA and its partners as they move forward.
Lockheed Martin’s Perspective and Next Steps
Lockheed Martin executives have expressed openness to evolving Orion’s launch architecture to meet NASA’s goals. Vice President Rob Binnie stated, “We’re open to evolving Orion’s launch architecture to meet NASA’s goals,” reflecting the company’s willingness to adapt to changing circumstances and explore new opportunities. Lockheed Martin’s $93 billion backlog in space contracts underscores the company’s significant role in the aerospace industry and its commitment to supporting NASA’s exploration efforts.
Planned studies through 2026, including wind tunnel tests and simulations for Orion on non-SLS stacks, are funded by a $100 million NASA allocation. These studies aim to evaluate the feasibility and performance of Orion on alternative launch vehicles, providing critical data to inform future decisions. The potential for partnerships with commercial providers also presents opportunities for Lockheed Martin to collaborate with other industry leaders, sharing intellectual property for Orion’s avionics in alternative configurations.
The exploration of alternative launch options for Orion represents a significant shift in NASA’s approach to deep-space exploration. By considering commercial launch vehicles, NASA and Lockheed Martin are positioning themselves to overcome the challenges associated with the SLS program and capitalize on new opportunities for innovation and collaboration. This strategic pivot could ultimately enhance the Artemis program’s success and ensure the continued advancement of human space exploration.

SpaceNut · 2025-10-20 15:24:17

NASA's chosen lander, SpaceX's Starship, may lose Artemis III moon landing contract

Time is ‘running out’ for SpaceX as Artemis III mission deadline looms, despite successful launch

China race and lagging progress Nasa thoughts of space x needs 10 to 20 more launchses before NASA will feel that its safe.

GW Johnson · 2025-10-21 08:56:09

I found this in today's "Daily Launch" email newsletter from AIAA. It refers to a longer article in the NY Times:

New York Times
With SpaceX Behind Schedule, NASA Will Seek More Moon Lander Ideas

The acting administrator of NASA said on Monday that the agency was looking for a Plan B to carry astronauts to the moon’s surface because SpaceX, Elon Musk’s rocket company, is behind schedule. In appearances on CNBC and Fox News, Sean Duffy, the temporary leader of the space agency, said he would open bidding on a contract to build a new lunar lander to other companies.

-----
my take on it:

I doubt SpaceX will lose its contract to do a "HLS" lunar lander version of Starship, unless Musk does something further to piss off Trump. Big egos seem to go with big money.

The "behind schedule" thing is the inevitable difference due to "Musk time" vs "real time". This is an effect well known and demonstrated to be a factor of about 3, since Musk started SpaceX and almost went bankrupt with it learning to successfully stage supersonic vehicles (Falcon-1, which failed its 1st 3 out of 4 flights).

There is no excuse for NASA not to have known about this effect. They apparently erroneously believed he could do it on a "Musk time" schedule. Which is where we are now.

All the contractors have this time factor schedule lie problem. It's a part of the marketing hype that wins contracts, unfortunately. It's just a different schedule time factor for each one. The government is supposed to track those things and be aware of about how long it will really take.

Boeing's time factor has risen since the merger with McDonnell-Douglas. It is now over 3, approaching 4. (Same goes for Lockheed-Martin.) The difference is that about the same jigger factor now applies to budget estimates with Boeing, not so much at all with SpaceX.

This inevitably pushes back the manned landing. It took 4 years to develop and fly the Apollo LM, and that was a crash program, where cost was secondary. It'll take longer to do this one, because the people who did this before are long-retired or dead, and took their know-how of the unwritten engineering art with them (which is close to half of what you need to know, in order to do what they did). This "plan B" thing should have started about 2-3 years ago.

And that NASA need for a "plan B" also reflects the Blue Origin delay, although nobody said a word about that! They have been funded to build and fly their "Blue Moon" lander, right alongside SpaceX, ever since SpaceX got its contract. Bezos also seems to have a time factor of about 3. And he's been busy trying to get his own big rocket flying, just like Musk.

Surprise, surprise!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-10-21 09:06:29)

SpaceNut · 2025-10-21 15:05:59

NASA opens SpaceX's moon lander contract to rivals over Starship delays

Duffy's comments follow months of mounting pressure within NASA to speed up its Artemis lunar program and push SpaceX to make greater progress on its Starship lunar lander, while China progresses toward its own goal of sending humans to the moon by 2030.
It represents a major shift in NASA's lunar strategy, starting a new competitive juncture in the program for a crewed moon lander just two years before the scheduled landing date. Blue Origin is widely expected to compete for the mission, while Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), opens new tab has indicated it would convene an industry team to heed NASA's call.
Starship, picked by NASA in 2021 under a contract now worth $4.4 billion, faces a 2027 moon landing deadline that agency advisers estimate could slip years behind schedule, citing competing priorities. Musk sees Starship as crucial to launching larger batches of Starlink satellites to space and eventually ferrying humans to Mars, among other missions.
"They do remarkable things, but they're behind schedule," Duffy said of SpaceX's lunar lander work, adding President Donald Trump wants to see the mission take place before his White House term ends in January 2029.
The move is a significant change under the agency's acting leadership, and as the White House and Duffy begin to reopen the nomination process for a permanent administrator. Billionaire entrepreneur and SpaceX customer-astronaut Jared Isaacman, an ally of Musk's, is in talks to reclaim his nomination that had been yanked by Trump over the summer.
Musk shrugged off the specter of more competition in a social media post.
"SpaceX is moving like lightning compared to the rest of the space industry," the SpaceX CEO wrote on X, replying to a user on Monday. "Moreover, Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission. Mark my words."
The mission involving SpaceX, Artemis 3, would be the first human lunar landing since Apollo 17 in 1972.
Bezos' space company Blue Origin, with its Blue Moon lander in development, has a similar lunar landing contract awarded by NASA in 2023 but for later Artemis moon missions. The company had protested NASA's initial decision to only pick SpaceX in 2021 and fought for years to convince the agency and lawmakers to select another proposal as a redundancy.
Duffy's reference to Blue Origin on Monday suggests Bezos' space company could contend for Artemis 3.
Blue Origin has been developing its Blue Moon lander in Florida with relatively little public attention under a contract worth roughly $3 billion. SpaceX has been developing Starship in Texas in a whirlwind campaign of test-to-failure demonstration missions, but NASA has grown uneasy with a lack of progress on lunar lander-specific development milestones.
NASA's multibillion-dollar Artemis program is a series of missions involving multiple contractors aimed at returning humans to the moon for a long-term presence there. Artemis 3 has been planned for 2027 with SpaceX's Starship.
Artemis 2, opens new tab, a 10-day flight around the moon and back involving systems built by Boeing (BA.N), opens new tab, Northrop Grumman (NOC.N), opens new tab and Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), opens new tab, is on track for April and could get moved up to February, he added.
Bezos and Blue Origin CEO Dave Limp reportedly spoke with Trump over the summer when the Republican president was feuding with Musk, a supporter in the 2024 election who was tapped to lead efforts to cut the federal government known as DOGE.

The current approved annual Starship launch rate is 25, following an approval by the FAA in May 2025. This is a significant increase from the previous limit of five, and SpaceX's goal is to increase this further to a weekly launch cadence, which could be achieved in 2026. However, the actual launch rate has been much lower than the approved maximum, with a total of five orbital flights by mid-October 2025.
Approved rate:
The FAA has approved up to 25 annual Starship/Super Heavy orbital launches from the Boca Chica launch site.
Previous rate: Before the recent approval, the limit was five launches per year.
Actual rate:
By mid-October 2025, only five Starship orbital launch attempts had been made, and no further launches were planned for the remainder of 2025.
Future goal:
SpaceX aims for a launch rate of up to 48 per year (one launch per week), potentially starting in April 2026, contingent on resolving technical issues and achieving full reusability.

It will take more than 6 consecutive launches for refill and at least a flyby and ocen landing from a second that is to be the return taxi once showing it can land on the moon.

SpaceNut · 2025-10-21 17:15:17

The Artemis III mission in the meantime

Artemis II will be NASA's first crewed flight around the moon since Apollo 17 launched in 1972 (albeit one surrounded by questions, with some people wondering if humanity's return to the moon is doomed). It will carry four astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft on a roughly 10-day journey. The selected crew consists of pilot Victor Glover, commander Reid Wiseman, and mission specialists Jeremy Hansen and Christina Koch. Originally scheduled for 2024, the mission has been delayed to no earlier than February 2026 — possibly even April 2026. The engineers must work through several technical issues uncovered after the uncrewed Artemis I flight. During that 2022 mission, Orion's heat shield performed its job but experienced unexpected erosion, prompting a deep review of how its material responds to extreme re-entry temperatures. NASA isn't taking chances. The shield must survive 5,000-degree Fahrenheit re-entry conditions with human lives aboard.
Beyond the heat shield, Orion's life-support and power systems have faced additional scrutiny. Problems with the environmental control unit (responsible for maintaining cabin air and temperature) and internal batteries led NASA to extend testing cycles into 2025. Meanwhile, ground systems at Kennedy Space Center, including fueling and crew access platforms, underwent upgrades to improve reliability. Each fix demands new simulations, inspections, and certification before astronauts can climb aboard.
NASA officials emphasize that schedule discipline cannot outweigh crew safety. The space agency prefers to stack the Artemis III hardware while Artemis II engineers methodically clear the final test milestones. As Artemis II commander Reid Wiseman explained (via Space.com), "We're going to launch when this vehicle is ready, when the team is ready, and we're going to go execute this mission to the best of our abilities." His words reflect NASA's broader mindset: Progress will continue, but the countdown won't begin until every system, and every person, is fully prepared.
As Artemis II undergoes its final checks, NASA is forging ahead with Artemis III, marking a bold step towards humanity's return to the moon. The agency began processing the mission's Space Launch System (SLS) core stage and twin solid-fuel boosters at Kennedy in mid-2025. According to NASA, technicians are already inspecting and stacking hardware components while the Orion crew capsule and European-built service module are being outfitted at separate facilities. The mission aims to deliver the first woman and next man to the moon's south polar region, though the agency hasn't published which astronauts will fill these historic roles.
Artemis III will rely on technologies tested by Artemis I and II, including Orion's navigation system and deep-space communication links. It will also depend on new commercial hardware, notably SpaceX's Human Landing System (HLS) Starship, which will ferry the astronauts from lunar orbit to the surface. Coordination between NASA, SpaceX, and international partners is intense, as delays in one program cascade into another. For now, though, NASA's eyes remain fixed on Artemis II. Only when that crew returns safely can we really increase what we know about Artemis III and NASA's return to the moon.
According to NASA, the Artemis III journey will represent one of the most ambitious feats of engineering and human skill ever attempted in deep space, though NASA also emphasizes the knowledge gained from prior flights. The mission aims to take astronauts to the lunar South Pole, a region of high scientific interest due to its water ice and unique geology. The crew's work there, including gathering samples and various data, will not only deepen our understanding of the moon but also serve to inspire the next generation of explorers, which NASA has already named the "Artemis Generation."

GW Johnson · 2025-10-22 09:01:09

Artemis II is the Orion atop the SLS with the flawed heat shield discovered on Artemis-I's Orion (which was the first Orion flown atop an SLS), but this one already built before they ran that uncrewed test flight. Orion flew once before, atop a smaller booster, and not under the name "Artemis"; that one (unlike the Artemis-I Orion) had a heat shield that was built and functioned properly. They changed the processing and screwed it up, after Artemis-I, to save $.

They have decided to fly it anyway, crewed, flawed as it is, even though there has been more than enough time to switch it out with one built "right". It just cost more $ to do that. So now try to tell me NASA top managers value crew safety above $ and schedule, the way that they claim! They claimed that before the Challenger loss (and attempted a cover-up afterward), and they claimed it again before the Columbia loss. They lied, both times. I have seen nothing since to indicate that those attitudes have ever changed since the loss of Challenger.

The Artemis-II mission is a loop around the moon, then heading out into cis-lunar space for a while, before coming home. This is without orbiting the moon. This mission does not even reprise Apollo-8, much less Apollo-10 through 17! That is how uncapable the Orion's service module is, and how uncapable SLS Block 1 is. The closest comparison is Apollo-13, which looped around the moon without orbiting, to save the crew after one of the O2 tanks in their service module blew apart.

The Apollo service module had the dV capability to enter low lunar orbit off the transfer trajectory with both the command module and a lunar module, and enough more dV to get back onto the transfer trajectory from low lunar orbit with just the command module. The Orion service module does NOT have that capability: it is too small, and the Orion capsule is too big and heavy for it. This configuration was selected by politicians, not real engineers! As was the SLS Block-1 configuration.

Artemis-III is another Orion already built, and as I understand it, already being stacked atop an SLS. I do not know if they fixed the flawed heat shield, not having seen a word about that. People should be asking questions about its heat shield! While it is slated to land astronauts on the moon, they do not yet have a working lander to take those astronauts there, with the landing only a year or 2 away, supposedly.

Now I see in the news that Musk has begun a pissing contest with the acting NASA administrator, over NASA re-opening the lander contract to Blue Origin and anyone else, because the Starship variant "HLS" is behind schedule and seems unlikely to be ready in a year or 2 (and I agree with that assessment). Big money correlates with big egos that simply do not know how to behave.

The real problem here is that neither Blue Origin nor anybody else can possibly man-rate a lunar lander in only 1-2 years. It took 4 on Apollo, and that was a crash program where costs were of secondary importance. Blue Origin has built things for its small Blue Moon prototype, but has built nothing for the larger one which was to be the crewed version.

The mistake here is that a serious lander program should have started about 5 or more years ago, maybe even 10 years ago, since this was not to be a "crash" program. But none did. And nobody at the modern NASA seems to have been keeping track of the factors Musk time/real time and Bezos time/real time. There has never been any reality to NASA's Artemis program: contracts, plans, or schedules.

There is plenty of fault here, to go around. A lot of this is the Senate's fault, since they micromanage not only what is to be done, but with what hardware, to be built in whose states. And no one is taking responsibility for all this gross mismanagement. I predict no one will.

Apollo succeeded because NASA and its engineers did the work without much in the way of congressional pork-barrel politics interfering with things and micromanaging things. The Space Shuttle, however, was NOT a fully reusable two-stage airplane, precisely because of congressional mismanagement. And the ISS suffered from the same congressional mismanagement flaws, which is why there were never any human centrifuges aboard it. And why it is in an orbit that is easy for the Russians to reach, but which is quite wrong for dispatching missions to anywhere outside Earth orbit.

The only part of NASA that really worked well in the years after Apollo was JPL with the planetary probes and landers. And now this particular congress and that idiot who is our president have now gutted JPL. 25% laid off, so far. Those idiots are firing the government workers that have demonstrably done good work! Just how STUPID is that?

And everybody forgets what the other A in NASA stands for: "aeronautics". The X-59 has still not yet flown, which was to demonstrate how to fly supersonic with reduced sonic boom. Meanwhile, Boom Supersonic has already accomplished that feat, and on private money. They got there faster. And they did a really good job!

The rot in government that needs rooting-out goes deep, yes, but that process should start in Congress and the White House, not with the general federal workforce.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-10-22 12:46:17)

SpaceNut · 2025-10-22 15:37:12

History of why we are here:

Following the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003, President George W. Bush announced the Vision for Space Exploration in 2004, which started the transition away from the Space Shuttle and toward new deep-space exploration programs. However, the program announced in 2004 was the now-canceled Constellation program—not Artemis. The Space Shuttle did not fully retire until 2011, and the Artemis program was not established until 2017.
2004: Vision for Space Exploration and the Constellation program
The decision:
In January 2004, after the loss of Space Shuttle Columbia and its crew, President Bush announced the Vision for Space Exploration. This initiative called for the Space Shuttle fleet to be retired after completing assembly of the International Space Station (ISS).
The goal:
The Vision set out a plan for developing a new crewed vehicle to return humans to the Moon and later travel to Mars and beyond.
The program:
The Constellation program was formed in 2005 to fulfill this vision. It involved the development of two new launch vehicles, the Ares I for crew and the Ares V for cargo, as well as the Orion crew capsule and the Altair lunar lander.
The path from Constellation to Artemis
Constellation's cancellation:
Following an independent review that found Constellation to be over budget and behind schedule, President Barack Obama formally canceled the program in 2010.
The start of Artemis:
In 2017, President Donald Trump established the Artemis program. The new program repurposed the Orion crew capsule from the Constellation program and adapted much of the launch hardware to create the Space Launch System (SLS).
The end of the Space Shuttle
Final flights:
The Space Shuttle program continued flying missions to assemble the ISS after the 2004 announcement.
Official retirement:
The program officially ended with the landing of Space Shuttle Atlantis on July 21, 2011. A six-year gap followed where American astronauts relied on Russian Soyuz vehicles to get to the ISS, before the Commercial Crew Program began.

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.

#14 2025-09-21 15:38:16

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#15 2025-09-23 17:17:52

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#16 2025-09-23 17:20:44

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#17 2025-10-09 17:26:47

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#18 2025-10-18 17:05:52

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#19 2025-10-20 15:24:17

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#20 2025-10-21 08:56:09

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#21 2025-10-21 15:05:59

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#22 2025-10-21 17:15:17

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#23 2025-10-22 09:01:09

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#24 2025-10-22 15:37:12

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

Board footer