Vice President tells NASA to get to the Moon in 5 years.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

I’m glad we are going back to the moon. I like the permanent Gateway idea. I kind of wish the project was more advanced. (I realize how stupid this sounds). However, it just looks like they are repeating what they did 50 years ago. I know they are not, but it feels that way. 

[atomheartbevo 89,878]

52 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m glad we are going back to the moon. I like the permanent Gateway idea. I kind of wish the project was more advanced. (I realize how stupid this sounds). However, it just looks like they are repeating what they did 50 years ago. I know they are not, but it feels that way. 

If the last time you had sex was nearly 50 years ago, and now you’re being asked to perform in a three-way that will be live-streamed to the world, you would be a little hesitant to add in anything more than a trapeze   

Wait, that’s not the right analogy.  

[deft 6,896]

That was amazing.  Thanks longhornsean.

[LonghornSean 4,034]

Yeah that vid is so good I debated starting a new thread but glad y’all checked this one and enjoyed. Whatever NASA PR team or whoever put that together did a helluva job.

[XYZ 2,154]

That video is dope.

[Buffsoldier 1,895]

On 8/20/2019 at 2:57 PM, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Don't forget the abandoned Nazi base

 

On 8/20/2019 at 5:39 PM, Neonmoon said:

That’s cute 

[Pato del Muerto 52,665]

10 year old bought this with Christmas money.  I suppose I’m gonna HAVE to help him build it. 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21,998]

My daughter and I built that.  It’s great and really not that complicated

[elfenix 34,364]

note the number of pieces

[Stella Link 534]

Wait, we've already been through this.    

Don't you remember why we left the moon in the first place?  When we found out the moon wasn't made of cheese, we left and haven't been back.

 

 

[Pato del Muerto 52,665]

I thought it had to do with decepticons

[UTexasFight 9,567]

 

 

 

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/the-next-step-in-testing-rockets-to-take-humanity-to-the-moon

 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,979]

So, are most folks still considering the SLS obsolete? I mean, I guess it would not be surprising to see our government continue to use single use rockets when reusable ones are available just so certain representatives can keep pumping money to their constituents. 

[atomheartbevo 89,878]

On 1/5/2020 at 11:42 PM, Pato del Muerto said:

I thought it had to do with decepticons

We still don’t know what Apollo 18 found.  

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

We still don’t know what Apollo 18 found.  

We will once Space Force gets back there........SEMPER LUNA!!!!

[RamjetFDO 10,578]

5 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

So, are most folks still considering the SLS obsolete? I mean, I guess it would not be surprising to see our government continue to use single use rockets when reusable ones are available just so certain representatives can keep pumping money to their constituents. 

It's not so much that it's obsolete as it is that there isn't a reusable launch vehicle that has the (projected) lift capability of the SLS.

Falcon Heavy: 140K pounds to LEO

SLS (projected): 290K pounds to LEO

Now - we can discuss the multiple reusable launches, LEO assembly of component parts, and then TLI to the Moon, but that's not the current profile.  I'd be a fan of more reusable launches with multiple components -- but every time you do that you add substantially more complexity, risk, and opportunities for failure to creep into the mission.  Which means you have to add more redundancies... which means less lift to LEO for each reusable launch.

It's certainly doable (it may ultimately be much more cost effective, too), and I would hope that future mission profiles trend this way.  But, for now, the SLS single vehicle profile is what's going to be used first.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,530]

dumb question but would it be possible to have a larger vehicle that could be kept in an orbit between the earth and moon for long periods of time? Perhaps set the ISS in that role. I assume the ISS doesn't have that propulsion system but that doesn't mean it couldn't be created.  Then when the ISS swings by the earth, all you have to do is dock with it to get a ride for the rest of the trip.

On that note, I hate when I hear conjecture that the ISS will eventually be de-orbited. How many billions did we spend to get all of that material up there and we would allow it to fall back to burn up or hit a cow in Australia. There has to be potential future use for the components of it.

[relapse98 634]

4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

dumb question but would it be possible to have a larger vehicle that could be kept in an orbit between the earth and moon for long periods of time? Perhaps set the ISS in that role. I assume the ISS doesn't have that propulsion system but that doesn't mean it couldn't be created.  Then when the ISS swings by the earth, all you have to do is dock with it to get a ride for the rest of the trip.

On that note, I hate when I hear conjecture that the ISS will eventually be de-orbited. How many billions did we spend to get all of that material up there and we would allow it to fall back to burn up or hit a cow in Australia. There has to be potential future use for the components of it.

The ISS has propulsion - otherwise it would have died a while back - the small engines are how it boosts itself back up to higher orbit.
If we keep the ISS, and it would be great if it's paying off in good will + scientific discoveries, then we have to maintain it. It's not as easy as just having it there, we still have to send it supplies of fuel etc., still have to repair it when shit hits the fan (like if the ruskies fuck up docking again and start leaking out the air).

[elfenix 34,364]

dumb question but would it be possible to have a larger vehicle that could be kept in an orbit between the earth and moon for long periods of time? Perhaps set the ISS in that role. I assume the ISS doesn't have that propulsion system but that doesn't mean it couldn't be created.  Then when the ISS swings by the earth, all you have to do is dock with it to get a ride for the rest of the trip.
On that note, I hate when I hear conjecture that the ISS will eventually be de-orbited. How many billions did we spend to get all of that material up there and we would allow it to fall back to burn up or hit a cow in Australia. There has to be potential future use for the components of it.

You'd have to expend the same amount of propellant to boost a given mass up to the Moon even if you'd already set up a craft to orbit from LEO to the Moon and back (which itself would be a really challenging problem). So you're not actually saving much.

[XYZ 2,154]

Speaking of propellant, when the fuck is anybody gonna invent a propulsion system that is not chemical rockets? We’re NEVER gonna get anywhere with rockets.

[bernorange 8,367]

1 minute ago, XYZ said:

Speaking of propellant, when the fuck is anybody gonna invent a propulsion system that is not chemical rockets? We’re NEVER gonna get anywhere with rockets.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28729/docs-show-navy-got-ufo-patent-granted-by-warning-of-similar-chinese-tech-advances

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,530]

2 hours ago, XYZ said:

Speaking of propellant, when the fuck is anybody gonna invent a propulsion system that is not chemical rockets? We’re NEVER gonna get anywhere with rockets.

Doesn't it just come down to that other methods can't currently create enough force to propel an object fast enough to even get in low earth orbit? Rocket equation limitation.

Interesting story that perhaps the first man-made object to reach space/orbit was a steel plate (i.e. manhole cover) that was launched by an above-ground atomic test in Nevada a few months before Sputnik. Thought to have reached speeds upwards of 150K mph and its uncertain whether the force vaporized the plate or not.  So we can use atomic bombs to propel objects into space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob

Edited January 9, 2020 by Nice Guy Eddie

[atomheartbevo 89,878]

https://spacenews.com/third-starship-prototype-destroyed-in-tanking-test/
 

Quote

For the third time in less than five months, a prototype of SpaceX’s Starship next-generation launch vehicle was destroyed in a test at the company’s South Texas facilities April 3, although this failure may an issue with the test itself.

The Starship SN3 vehicle was on the pad at SpaceX’s test site at Boca Chica, Texas, in the early morning hours of April 3 for a cryogenic tanking test, where the vehicle’s propellant tanks are filled with liquid nitrogen. Shortly after 3 a.m. Eastern, the cylindrical vehicle appeared to crumple about halfway up, causing the top part of the vehicle to topple.

Quote

The accident marks the third time a prototype of Starship failed that cryogenic tanking test. In November 2019, the Starship Mark 1 vehicle suffered a bulkhead failure during a similar test, sending debris flying. The company said at the time that the incident took place in a test intended to “pressurize systems to the max, so the outcome was not completely unexpected.”

A second Starship vehicle, SN1, was also destroyed in a cryogenic tanking test Feb. 28, this time with the vehicle bursting near its base. Elon Musk, founder and chief executive of SpaceX, said that the failure in that test appeared to be with a “thrust puck” at the base of the tank that takes the load from the vehicle’s Raptor engines.

This is one of the systems that could take us back to the moon.   

 

[atomheartbevo 89,878]

NASA released their plan for a landing In 2024, and their base(s).

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/a_sustained_lunar_presence_nspc_report4220final.pdf

Quote

This document covers and responds to the Chairman of the National Space Council’s direction to provide a plan for a sustained lunar presence, including the technologies and capabilities to enable the first human mission to Mars. For millennia humanity has looked at the Moon in wonder and awe. As the United States leads the development of a sustained presence on the Moon together with commercial partners and international partners, our presence on the Moon will serve as a constant reminder of the limitless potential of humanity. It will continue to inspire humanity as we seek ever more distant worlds to explore - starting with Mars.

Quote

Americans will return to the Moon in 2024. Following this 2024 landing, we will develop a sustained, strategic presence at the lunar South Pole called the Artemis Base Camp. Our activities at our Artemis Base Camp over the next decade will pave the way for long-term economic and scientific activity at the Moon, as well as for the first human mission to Mars in the 2030s.

Starting next year, a steady stream of robotic precursors and technology demonstrations will begin lunar operations. The Moon is a fundamental part of our planet’s past and future. Although Americans first walked on its surface more than 50 years ago, our explorers left only fleeting footprints at a few sites, spending a total of 16 days on the lunar surface. These missions were all in the equatorial region, with a total traverse of less than 100kms (~62 miles) – on a body whose surface area is the size of Africa.

This next wave of lunar exploration will be fundamentally different. It starts with American expeditions to the vicinity of the Moon in 2023, and landing astronauts on the surface in 2024. This will be the first chance for most people alive today to witness a human lunar encounter and landing – a moment when, in awe and wonder, the world holds its breath. America will not stop there – this will be the opening chapter of a new era of discovery and exploration.

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by atomheartbevo

[NeverMarryAStripper 21,998]

On 1/9/2020 at 11:00 AM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Doesn't it just come down to that other methods can't currently create enough force to propel an object fast enough to even get in low earth orbit? Rocket equation limitation.

Interesting story that perhaps the first man-made object to reach space/orbit was a steel plate (i.e. manhole cover) that was launched by an above-ground atomic test in Nevada a few months before Sputnik. Thought to have reached speeds upwards of 150K mph and its uncertain whether the force vaporized the plate or not.  So we can use atomic bombs to propel objects into space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob

Project Orion has been around for a long time

[atomheartbevo 89,878]

Boeing fucked up with their capsule and missed a lot of software problems, and NASA missed them as well   Going to set aside $410 million and try again later this year   

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/after-troubled-first-flight-boeing-will-refly-starliner-without-crew/

Quote

Boeing announced on Monday evening that it will refly its Starliner spacecraft, without astronauts, to demonstrate the vehicle's safety for NASA.

"We are committed to the safety of the men and women who design, build and ultimately will fly on the Starliner just as we have on every crewed mission to space," Boeing said in a statement. "We have chosen to refly our Orbital Flight Test to demonstrate the quality of the Starliner system. Flying another uncrewed flight will allow us to complete all flight test objectives and evaluate the performance of the second Starliner vehicle at no cost to the taxpayer."

Quote

The decision follows the initial uncrewed flight of Starliner in late December, when what was supposed to be a week-long mission was cut to two days and a plan to dock with the International Space Station was abandoned due to a "mission elapsed time" error.

In subsequent weeks, a team of investigators found and characterized two major software errors during the mission, one shortly after launch and another just before the capsule was due to enter Earth's atmosphere for its return home. This led NASA's chief of human spaceflight, Doug Loverro, to designate the December flight a "high-visibility close call" in March.

Quote

Asked to explain why he did this, Loverro told reporters at the time, "We could have lost a spacecraft twice during this mission." As a result of this, NASA has begun to investigate Boeing's safety culture. The agency also formally opened a process during which its Safety Office will investigate space-agency elements that may have led to the incident—likely focusing on why NASA did not detect the errors in Starliner's flight software.

For its part, Boeing said it would pay for the re-flight, for which it set aside $410 million early this year. The company did not say when it would attempt this second test flight, but The Washington Post, which broke the news about the reflight, speculated it would come no earlier than this fall.

 

[Wally Fairway 5,596]

9 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Boeing fucked up with their capsule and missed a lot of software problems, and NASA missed them as well   Going to set aside $410 million and try again later this year   

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/after-troubled-first-flight-boeing-will-refly-starliner-without-crew/

 

Software problems seem like a recurrent theme at Boeing

[mulletpelini 5,216]

we really need to get up there soon to build a laser to fight the aliens when they get here.

[atomheartbevo 89,878]

On 4/8/2020 at 6:53 AM, mulletpelini said:

we really need to get up there soon to build a laser to fight the aliens when they get here.

We just need to work on keeping Jeff Goldblum young.  He’s pushing 70.

[atomheartbevo 89,878]

Quote

The mission will launch astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley to the International Space Station on a SpaceXCrew Dragon spacecraft in a final test flight for NASA. The mission, Demo-2, will mark NASA's first crew launch from American soil since the agency's space shuttle fleet retired in July 2011. Liftoff is set for 4:32 p.m. EDT (2032 GMT) from historic Launch Pad 39A, the same site used for NASA's Apollo and shuttle missions. 

SpaceX and NASA launching a crewed mission on May 27.   

https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-nasa-astronauts-demo-2-launch-date.html

@RamjetFDO any thoughts?

[Neonmoon 38,130]

Can’t wait 

[RamjetFDO 10,578]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

@RamjetFDO any thoughts?

... 'bout time?

 

Seriously, though - they've been steadily building to this, and a first manned mission now seems perfectly reasonable. 

[Hate 20,154]

Right? Has there been a better time in the last few centuries to get off of this planet?

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

Just watched this interview from a year after the landing.  Cool last question. 
 

 

[atomheartbevo 89,878]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/nasa-selects-hls-lunar-lander-teams-blue-origin-spacex-dynetics.html
 

Quote

NASA awarded contracts worth a combined $967 million to three teams of companies  on Thursday to begin work on lunar landers toward the agency’s goal of putting astronauts on the Moon by 2024.

Teams led by Blue Origin, SpaceX and Dynetics won awards under NASA’s Human Landing Systems program. These awards are study contracts for the next 10 months, at the end of which NASA will pick one or more winners to begin building the spacecraft.

Boeing, in partnership with Aerojet Rocketdyne, also bid on HLS but was not awarded with a study contract. The Boeing proposal included using an upgraded Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, which Boeing is currently building for NASA.

 

Quote

The lunar landers built under HLS are a part of NASA’s Artemis mission to land astronauts on the Moon by 2024. That’s a task President Donald Trump gave NASA in 2017, when he directed the agency to accelerate its efforts and land humans on the lunar surface. Trump was the third president in the last 30 years to announce a return to the Moon.

NASA requested $3.37 billion in its fiscal year 2021 to fund the HLS program. Congress last year approved $600 million for the agency to develop a crewed lunar lander, making NASA’s latest request more than five times as much as it currently has.

Lot of info at the link, and some of those we’ve heard about, but this was interesting

Quote

science and technology company Dynetics, a wholly-owned subsidiary of defense contractor Leidos, teamed up with Sierra Nevada Corporation to develop its lunar lander. The companies have been quiet about the proposal, only confirming in January that Dynetics was leading a bid for HLS.

Interesting that Boeing did not win a contract.

Edited April 30, 2020 by atomheartbevo

[atomheartbevo 89,878]

https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-nasa-astronauts-historic-test-flight.html

NASA astronauts Bob Behknen (left) and Doug Hurley will be the first to fly on SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft during the Demo-2 mission. It could launch in Spring 2020. Here, they walk through the access arm in a dress rehearsal for launch during SpaceX in-flight abort preparations.

Quote

It's been nearly nine years since an American vehicle launched astronauts into orbit. This month, SpaceX and NASA aim to change that in an unprecedented test flight six years in the making.

NASA astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley are due to launch to the International Space Station from Florida aboard a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule on May 27. A crewed U.S. spacecraft last accessed the orbiting laboratory in 2011. Since then, NASA astronauts have launched on Russian Soyuz vehicles as NASA quietly stewed. Of the 20 years that the space station has been continually inhabited, the U.S. has been without a crew vehicle capable of reaching the orbiting laboratory for nearly half that period.

Those space suits....

Not going to lie, we have been cooped up for almost two months, have plenty of camping gear, the temptation to head out to Florida and watch this in person is mighty tempting. My 7 year-old would remember this.  Don’t have to be near anybody since we could bring all of our food with us, etc.

Edited May 1, 2020 by atomheartbevo

[Trey3216 15,380]

49 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-nasa-astronauts-historic-test-flight.html

NASA astronauts Bob Behknen (left) and Doug Hurley will be the first to fly on SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft during the Demo-2 mission. It could launch in Spring 2020. Here, they walk through the access arm in a dress rehearsal for launch during SpaceX in-flight abort preparations.

Those space suits....

Not going to lie, we have been cooped up for almost two months, have plenty of camping gear, the temptation to head out to Florida and watch this in person is mighty tempting. My 7 year-old would remember this.  Don’t have to be near anybody since we could bring all of our food with us, etc.

Those suits look like some terrible Moonraker shit 

[atomheartbevo 89,878]

26 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Those suits look like some terrible Moonraker shit 

I thought for sure they had to be fake.  Like an outtake from Interstellar.  

[Armybrat 40,942]

Well, at least the pants aren’t bell bottoms.

[Telegraph_it 3,360]

4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-nasa-astronauts-historic-test-flight.html

NASA astronauts Bob Behknen (left) and Doug Hurley will be the first to fly on SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft during the Demo-2 mission. It could launch in Spring 2020. Here, they walk through the access arm in a dress rehearsal for launch during SpaceX in-flight abort preparations.

Those space suits....

Not going to lie, we have been cooped up for almost two months, have plenty of camping gear, the temptation to head out to Florida and watch this in person is mighty tempting. My 7 year-old would remember this.  Don’t have to be near anybody since we could bring all of our food with us, etc.

It’s not a bad idea. I am currently planning to be flying around the peninsula during launch. 

[atomheartbevo 89,878]

So @RamjetFDO what do you think of the suits?

They seem exactly like what SpaceX would design a suit to be.

Meanwhile the Lunar spacesuits...

[Victor Lazlo 1,780]

On 4/17/2020 at 10:30 PM, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Just watched this interview from a year after the landing.  Cool last question. 
 

 

Damn, Neil Armstrong seems like he was pretty smart. 
A stellar choice to command that first mission to the moon. 

[El Diablo 4,232]

SpaceX McGregor was rocking the house yesterday. Holy fuck that was one long test burn. 

[Trey3216 15,380]

48 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

SpaceX McGregor was rocking the house yesterday. Holy fuck that was one long test burn. 

Yep.  They’ve been doing some huge burns lately.   

[El Diablo 4,232]

2 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

Yep.  They’ve been doing some huge burns lately.   

I'm over near Wooded Acres HEB and I don't recall ever hearing them like it's been happening lately. Takes some getting used to.

[Trey3216 15,380]

8 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I'm over near Wooded Acres HEB and I don't recall ever hearing them like it's been happening lately. Takes some getting used to.

I’m right by Woodway H-E-B.  That shit is getting loud enough to rattle dishes.   Can’t imagine how loud it is living right by there 

[El Diablo 4,232]

Need to stop pussy footing around and just go to the fucking moon, Alice.

[Blotto 23,601]

Have to wonder how the impending budget battles will impact funding for plans to get to the moon by 2024, not to mention a possible change in administration. I was a summer intern at Westinghouse in Round Rock working on the SSC project in Waxahachie when Congress cancelled that in 93, and it was crazy to see the whole thing move from "full speed ahead" to "shut this fucker down" during the 3 months I was there.

If I recall correctly, Congress wanted to show they were serious about balancing the budget and it came down to axing either the SSC or one of the space initiatives (ISS or the shuttle programs). Space won out that time, but the dollar amount for the SSC was trivial compared to the budget gaps we'll be staring down in the next couple of years.

[atomheartbevo 89,878]

Ouch

https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/08/nasa_boeing_starliner/

Quote

At a press conference on Tuesday, NASA confirmed why Boeing's CST-100 Starliner spaceship failed to hook up with the International Space Station last year. The answer: as expected, buggy code.

Quote

Crucially, NASA admitted it did not supervise Boeing closely enough during the craft's software development stage because the agency trusted the aerospace corp's seemingly "more traditional" engineering methods, and thought it had a good grasp on Boeing's processes. NASA thus focused its attention instead on assessing rival SpaceX's newer programming techniques.

Quote

Back in December, Boeing was tasked with sending a Starliner packed with cargo to Earth's orbiting science lab. This would have been a perfect opportunity for Boeing to demonstrate it was on track with the spacecraft, which it hopes will safely ferry humans into the heavens in the not-too-distant future. However, the flight was plagued with software glitches, and the Starliner ultimately failed to dock with the station.

Quote

Ground control was able to bring Boeing’s calamity cargo ship back to Earth, and NASA launched a thorough investigation to figure out what went wrong. As a result of that probe, NASA and Boeing boffins have come up with a list of 80 recommendations to fix Starliner's glaring problems, Kathy Lueders, associate administrator of NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, said in a conference call with reporters.

Quote

“The strategy was because we’re buying a service, NASA did not have a requirement to have a systems engineering management plan," she said. "If we had understood what that structure was, we would have been better able to plug into the decision-making process. In particular, how they were integrating software and hardware pieces together. We thought we understood it, but over time we realized it had changed."

Paging @RamjetFDO

 

[Anastasis 23,471]

oops.gif.