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

[Pato del Muerto 53566]

Trusting Boeing to do its own oversight is a tried and true procedure for the federal agencies. 

[RamjetFDO 10655]

Yeah, having dealt with Boeing in both space and defense arenas...  not the smartest plan to let them self-manage everything without independent oversight.

[atomheartbevo 90665]

On 7/9/2020 at 2:24 PM, RamjetFDO said:

Yeah, having dealt with Boeing in both space and defense arenas...  not the smartest plan to let them self-manage everything without independent oversight.

But their spacesuits are so......blue.

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

 

Jorts?

[atomheartbevo 90665]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/08/nasa-just-announced-in-a-blog-post-that-sls-will-cost-30-more/

Quote

In a fairly anodyne update on NASA's "Artemis" blog published Wednesday, the space agency's new chief of human spaceflight laid out progress made on key hardware programs.

"Already within my short time on the job, NASA is checking-off key milestones and marching swiftly toward Artemis I," wrote Kathy Lueders, who moved into the job after leading the Commercial Crew program. "That mission, the first uncrewed flight test of our powerful Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft, is just a little more than a year away from launch."

Quote

Lueders next discussed preparations for a "Green Run" test of the SLS rocket's core stage this fall, possibly by the end of October. This test will take place at Stennis Space Center in southern Mississippi, during which engineers for NASA and the core state contractor, Boeing, will ignite the clamped-down rocket's four main engines and fire them for eight minutes to simulate a launch and ascent into space.

Quote

After discussing this and other details, Lueders then rather casually let it slip that "NASA also aligned the development costs for the SLS and Exploration Ground Systems programs through Artemis I and established new cost commitments." The new development cost for SLS rocket is $9.1 billion, she said, and its budget for the initial ground systems to support the mission is now $2.4 billion.

Quote

Left unsaid: This represents a 33-percent increase for the rocket since 2017, when a "re-plan" of program estimated development costs for the rocket, including a single test flight, would be $7.17 billion. (This was detailed in a US General Accounting Office report published nearly a year ago.) This figure represents only direct development costs. NASA has received more than $20 billion from Congress since 2011 for SLS development and related activities.

Quote

At the time of the "re-plan" in 2017, NASA established a "December 2019-June 2020" date for the first test launch of the SLS rocket. This was a delay from earlier plans to launch it by the end of 2017.

In her update, Lueders said she was "confident" that a November 2021 launch date for the rocket is achievable. However, she cited a few caveats to this. For one, she said, "It is still too early to predict the full impact of COVID-19." She also said such a launch date is predicated on "a successful Green Run hot fire test."

 

 

[atomheartbevo 90665]

https://www.space.com/nasa-moon-landing-2024-needs-lunar-lander-funding
 

Quote

NASA is definitely targeting the moon's south pole for a crewed landing in 2024 — but that timeline will be difficult to achieve if Congress doesn't open its purse strings, and fast, agency chief Jim Bridenstine said.

During a presentation with NASA's Lunar Exploration Analysis Group last Monday (Sept. 14), Bridenstine seemed to suggest that the agency is open to a more equatorial site for the 2024 touchdown, a key milestone in NASA's Artemis program of crewed lunar exploration. 

Quote

That would be a big shift for NASA, which has long stressed that the first crewed moon landing since the Apollo days would come near the south pole, where lots of water ice lurks on permanently shadowed crater floors. But Bridenstine just clarified that his earlier words about the 2024 mission, known as Artemis 3, were purely hypothetical.

Quote

"To be clear: We're going to the south pole," Bridenstine said during a teleconference with reporters yesterday (Sept. 21). "And there is no talk or trades or anything else about anything other than going to the south pole at NASA."

The astronauts who hit the gray dirt in 2024 will do so aboard a private lander — one built by SpaceX, Dynetics or a team headed by Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin. In April of this year, NASA awarded these three groups a total of $967 million, which is covering 10 months' worth of work on their concepts. 

 

Quote

NASA will need to pour considerably more money into the development of these human landing systems, one or more of which will survive a cull expected to come early next year. Indeed, the White House's 2021 federal budget requestallocates about $3.2 billion for crewed lunar lander work in fiscal year 2021, out of a total proposed NASA budget of $25.2 billion.

 

[atomheartbevo 90665]

Paging @RamjetFDO

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-announce-new-science-results-about-moon

Quote

NASA will announce an exciting new discovery about the Moon from the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) at a media teleconference at 12 p.m. EDT Monday, Oct. 26. Audio of the teleconference will stream live on the agency’s website.

This new discovery contributes to NASA’s efforts to learn about the Moon in support of deep space exploration. Under NASA’s Artemis program, the agency will send the first woman and next man to the lunar surface in 2024 to prepare for our next giant leap – human exploration of Mars as early as the 2030s. Understanding the science of the Moon also helps piece together the broader history of the inner solar system.

Briefing participants are:

• Paul Hertz, Astrophysics division director at NASA Headquarters, Washington
• Jacob Bleacher, chief exploration scientist for the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters
• Casey Honniball, postdoctoral fellow at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
• Naseem Rangwala, project scientist for the SOFIA mission, NASA’s Ames Research Center, Silicon Valley, California

As the world’s largest airborne observatory, SOFIA is a modified 747 that flies high in the atmosphere to provide its nearly 9-foot telescope with a clear view of the universe and objects in our solar system. Flying above 99% of the atmosphere’s obscuring water vapor, SOFIA observes in infrared wavelengths and can detect phenomena impossible to see with visible light.

 

[Pato del Muerto 53566]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Jacob Bleacher

/horse winnies

[Neonmoon 38130]

What’s up Harry? Did NASA find oil on Uranus?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 5005]

On 10/23/2020 at 3:56 PM, atomheartbevo said:

Paging @RamjetFDO

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-announce-new-science-results-about-moon

 

Water in the sunlit area of the moon, fyi for those who forgot about this.

[Guest Lobo]

Wait, there's water up there?  What are we dicking around down here for then?  I'll be up there from 11/4 to 1/20 while the country shits itself.  

[MonkeyDoughnut 10809]

Looks like our moon mission is about to get pushed back at least 4 more years...

https://spacenews.com/biden-administration-expected-to-emphasize-climate-science-over-lunar-exploration-at-nasa/

Good news is China seems to be ramping up and likely will beat us to both moon base and mars mission so at least we can watch

[Armybrat 41429]

Yep, gotta further cede US dominance in the sciences & military.

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

On 10/27/2020 at 10:36 AM, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Water in the sunlit area of the moon, fyi for those who forgot about this.

 

Awesome! another world for us to completely fuck up, while making a few very very wealthy and the rest live in literal shit.

 

 

[atomheartbevo 90665]

39 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Looks like our moon mission is about to get pushed back at least 4 more years...

https://spacenews.com/biden-administration-expected-to-emphasize-climate-science-over-lunar-exploration-at-nasa/

Good news is China seems to be ramping up and likely will beat us to both moon base and mars mission so at least we can watch

Let's not kid ourselves, it's the end of 2020, we were not going to be back on the moon in 2024.  We are just now about to launch an official crewed mission to the ISS (this week in fact).  The previous SpaceX launch was a "demo" mission.

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

41 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Looks like our moon mission is about to get pushed back at least 4 more years...

https://spacenews.com/biden-administration-expected-to-emphasize-climate-science-over-lunar-exploration-at-nasa/

Good news is China seems to be ramping up and likely will beat us to both moon base and mars mission so at least we can watch

 

lol please don't tell me you ever actually believed there was going to be a moon mission

or that china or anybody else is going to establish a moon base in our lifetimes.

 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10809]

58 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

lol please don't tell me you ever actually believed there was going to be a moon mission

or that china or anybody else is going to establish a moon base in our lifetimes.

 

I mean it's already under way, payload missions already scheduled, so yeah I feel pretty optimistic

[SquishMitten 10497]

 
lol please don't tell me you ever actually believed there was going to be a moon mission
or that china or anybody else is going to establish a moon base in our lifetimes.
 

You don’t think anybody is ever going back to the moon? And you don’t think any country will have some sort of permanent structure on the moon in the next 50-60 years? The only thing I can think of that would result in that being true is there’s such an advance in technology that a moon base is no longer seen as necessary to send manned missions to Mars or elsewhere. But I’d imagine they would still do a demo build on the moon just to work out some kinks.

It’s not like we have a wealth of engineering knowledge in zero g. Water doesn’t run downhill, and maybe you CAN push a rope

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

1 minute ago, SquishMitten said:

You don’t think anybody is ever going back to the moon? And you don’t think any country will have some sort of permanent structure on the moon in the next 50-60 years? The only thing I can think of that would result in that being true is there’s such an advance in technology that a moon base is no longer seen as necessary to send manned missions to Mars or elsewhere. But I’d imagine they would still do a demo build on the moon just to work out some kinks

 

I don't think there was ever going to be a moon mission during the DoTArd presidency.

I don't think there will be a moon "base" in our lifetimes. To me, "base" implies somebody there all the time. (Maybe I'm using the word "base" incorrectly.) I don't think we are going to be able to establish a permanent base using chemical rockets. Too big, too expensive, too dangerous. We would need a huge technological leap (space ladders, fusion drives, fuck if I know). I will concede that I'm no expert, though.

Don't we already have permanent structures left there by the Apollo missions (laser reflectors and such)?

[RamjetFDO 10655]

Everyone shove your politics (on both sides) up your collective asses.  You really are as ignorant of this subject as you sound. 

Facts don't care about your feelings.

Would 2024 have happened in a (potential) second Trump admin?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But it is being targeted and planned for as of the last public schedule (Sept 2020).  Will the Artemis lunar flyby happen still?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  It's still on the books.  Unmanned in 2021 and manned in 2023.  Will the landing mission have the same importance in a (potential) Biden admin as a Trump admin?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But it's still on the books for 2024 for now.

That is *all* anyone knows right now.  If the Biden admin does revert back to the Obama admin policies, then the Artemis Program is toast.  I'm hoping cooler heads prevail.

 

 

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

 

Well, please why don't you educate us, all knowing one?

 

[RamjetFDO 10655]

8 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Well, please why don't you educate us, all knowing one?

 

Read my post above.  You concede you don't know, yet make concrete pronouncements of failure based on your political bent.  My point was "it's currently being worked to a schedule that hasn't changed - regardless of what you feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel" or want to believe based on your clear ideology.

Until such time as the schedules change (and they may VERY well change regardless of who's in the White House), they are what's being planned for.  Hardware is being built.  Missions are being planned and trained.  Flight Controllers have already been selected for MCC support of initial flights.

Do we have the technology (today) to establish a permanent lunar presence?  Abso-fucking-lutely.  We've had it for decades.  It's only going to get better, but that's not what's stopping or slowing us down.

Do we have the capital (both $$ and political) to do it?  Not so much.  That's why it blows in the wind generated by politicians and one of the reasons that schedules change.  The others being poor process management, contract oversight, etc.  But it's not the technical ability of the people or the technology available.

[SquishMitten 10497]

38 minutes ago, RamjetFDO said:

If the Biden admin does revert back to the Obama admin policies, then the Artemis Program is toast.  I'm hoping cooler heads prevail.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Cooler heads prevail, and the project stays on track for 2024? Cooler heads prevail, and a more realistic timeframe is put in place to maximize the chance of success? Or cooler heads prevail and the project is scrapped? I'm assuming it's one of the first two, but if it's the third, I'm interested to know why.

[RamjetFDO 10655]

2 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Cooler heads prevail, and the project stays on track for 2024? Cooler heads prevail, and a more realistic timeframe is put in place to maximize the chance of success? Or cooler heads prevail and the project is scrapped? I'm assuming it's one of the first two, but if it's the third, I'm interested to know why.

Either of the first two, really ... I don't have any idea as to which.  But I'd prefer a path to "keep going" (even if it's extended) rather than just throwing it all aside, as happened in the Obama admin.

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

 

Spare me (us) the condescension.

 

Quote

Do we have the technology (today) to establish a permanent lunar presence?  Abso-fucking-lutely.  We've had it for decades.  It's only going to get better, but that's not what's stopping or slowing us down.

 

I'll defer to your expertise on this.

 

Quote

Do we have the capital (both $$ and political) to do it?  Not so much.  That's why it blows in the wind generated by politicians and one of the reasons that schedules change.  The others being poor process management, contract oversight, etc

 

This is why I said a lunar base, or even a manned lunar mission, ain't happening anytime soon. The trump administration couldn't organize a mission to McDonald's without fucking it up. I knew this in 2020 2016. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain now. And I'm skeptical to the point of disbelief that a 2nd trump term could do it by 2024.

Could a Biden administration? I don't know, depends on their priorities and their general competence. But here is the deal: even if they could, the decision about whether they should spend the capital is politics, pure and simple. Sorry if that hurts your feeeeeeeeels.

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by High Plains Drifter
2016, 2020 whatever it takes

[Rip76 5022]

7 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

cooler heads 

I assume it means people who give a F about the program.

[SquishMitten 10497]

3 minutes ago, RamjetFDO said:

Either of the first two, really ... I don't have any idea as to which.  But I'd prefer a path to "keep going" (even if it's extended) rather than just throwing it all aside, as happened in the Obama admin.

Is scrapping it the only option if they decide not to proceed right now? Or could a third-party like Space-X buy out the project and finish it?

[Bevo 13904]

19 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Spare me (us) the condescension.

 

 

I'll defer to your expertise on this.

 

 

This is why I said a lunar base, or even a manned lunar mission, ain't happening anytime soon. The trump administration couldn't organize a mission to McDonald's without fucking it up. I knew this in 2020. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain now. And I'm skeptical to the point of disbelief that a 2nd trump term could do it by 2024.

Could a Biden administration? I don't know, depends on their priorities and their general competence. But here is the deal: even if they could, the decision about whether they should spend the capital is politics, pure and simple. Sorry if that hurts your feeeeeeeeels.

 

Don't make condescending posts and then tell him to "Spare me (us) the condescension". How the fuck do you think someone is going to act when you say, "I don't think there was ever going to be a moon mission during the DoTArd presidency. I don't think there will be a moon "base" in our lifetimes. Don't we already have permanent structures left there by the Apollo missions (laser reflectors and such)"? First of all, the post is political so you have a 50% chance of pissing someone off. Second, you make it a point to say that you aren't educated on the subject but have a very strong opinion. Third, you add condescension by saying we already have stuff up there.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Bevo

[RamjetFDO 10655]

16 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

This is why I said a lunar base, or even a manned lunar mission, ain't happening anytime soon. The trump administration couldn't organize a mission to McDonald's without fucking it up. I knew this in 2020. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain now. And I'm skeptical to the point of disbelief that a 2nd trump term could do it by 2024.

Could a Biden administration? I don't know, depends on their priorities and their general competence. But here is the deal: even if they could, the decision about whether they should spend the capital is politics, pure and simple. Sorry if that hurts your feeeeeeeeels.

 

But again - and sorry/not sorry if facts make you feel condescended to - a manned lunar mission is CURRENTLY IN WORK AND ON THE SCHEDULE for 2024.  Your lack of knowledge (and obvious politically-motivated feelings) of the subject do not make your comments "facts".  I said that the mission could make it in 2024, or it could be delayed.  Or, to be 100% honest - scrapped altogether.

But right now - just because you say it "ain't happening anytime soon" doesn't mean that everyone at NASA and various contractors are  just going to say "fuck it" and walk away.  Your claim that anyone with "half a brain" should support your opinion shows the lack of your ability to think critically on this or defer to those with more experience and insight.  You can express your opinion - but until such time as facts support it, it will remain your opinion. 

But here is the deal: Facts don't support you right now.  Will they in the future?  Maybe.   Maybe not.  LOTS of variables in this equation.

... and your "But here is the deal" statement is pretty much what I said, so yeah ... my feelings are just fine.  Perhaps your reading comprehension could use a tune up.

 

[RamjetFDO 10655]

20 minutes ago, Rip76 said:

I assume it means people who give a F about the program.

 

That's certainly a big part of it ... competent leadership to motivate and get funding is critical.  It's been kinda wishy-washy in the recent past.

The other part - obvi - is funding.  "No bucks.  No Buck Rogers."  But as you correctly said - get the people who care about the program in there, and they can motivate the political will to spend the $$.

[RamjetFDO 10655]

21 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Is scrapping it the only option if they decide not to proceed right now? Or could a third-party like Space-X buy out the project and finish it?

 

I don't think Elon would need to buy out anything ... but let's not pretend SpaceX is fully and solely a self-sustaining enterprise.  They require government funding even for what they're doing now.  

If there was a way to commercialize it, Elon would be all over it - and ultimately would probably succeed.  We're not quite at the commercially-profitable lunar mission stage yet.

[Hate 20250]

We should make sure that all religions are represented at NASA rather than going to the moon or further exploring space. That is what is most important.

[atomheartbevo 90665]

13 minutes ago, RamjetFDO said:

But again - and sorry/not sorry if facts make you feel condescended to - a manned lunar mission is CURRENTLY IN WORK AND ON THE SCHEDULE for 2024.  Your lack of knowledge (and obvious politically-motivated feelings) of the subject do not make your comments "facts".  I said that the mission could make it in 2024, or it could be delayed.  Or, to be 100% honest - scrapped altogether.

The fact that it seems like we are behind schedule or at least Boeing is, seems like it would impact that timeline (which is why I made that comment).

Are those kinds of delays built in?

[RamjetFDO 10655]

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The fact that it seems like we are behind schedule or at least Boeing is, seems like it would impact that timeline (which is why I made that comment).

Are those kinds of delays built in?

 

"Sometimes" there's management reserve built in ... but sometimes, these are games contractors play to get more (nonexistent) funding and then "crash the schedule" by adding extra people, overtime, etc. to actually make the original dates.

But yeah - 2024 is not a slam dunk.  It's definitely got a lot of risk in it, but the important thing is to remember that's an admittedly political date.  If it's 2025, no big deal - except to the politicians that wanted it "on their watch".  The rank-and-file at NASA and the contractors don't care.

So, bottom line - your (non political!) point is 100% valid that contractor delays may very well be what drives the schedule to be extended, but it's not at that point yet.

[workswithseed 2204]

54 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Spare me (us) the condescension.

 

 

 

Fuck yes, I fucking hate the condescension. If the god damn rocket scientist hurts your feelings then, then stop being a goddamned idiot and listen.

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

 

Let me just say---

I think we should be heavily investing in science and technology in general, and space exploration specifically. (Yes, I view that kind of funding as an investment that long term pays better returns than just anything else.) I lament that we were once the world leader in that regard, and are losing that position. That's my opinion.

Its also my opinion that due to political ineptitude, gridlock, ongoing financial crises, general stupidity, whatever, we aren't getting back to the moon anytime soon. RJ thanks I'm wrong on that. I don't work for NASA, I only know what I read in the papers. I hope that I'm wrong. I hope the Biden administration will do what it takes and we do have a successful manned mission. But I am a pessimistic asshole, so I'll believe it when I'm seeing it.

Yeah, I know, my opinion is worth less than a pile of shit, unless you agree with it of course.

 

Anybody remember the Superconducting Super Collider?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RamjetFDO 10655]

23 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Let me just say---

I think we should be heavily investing in science and technology in general, and space exploration specifically. (Yes, I view that kind of funding as an investment that long term pays better returns than just anything else.) I lament that we were once the world leader in that regard, and are losing that position. That's my opinion.

Its also my opinion that due to political ineptitude, gridlock, ongoing financial crises, general stupidity, whatever, we aren't getting back to the moon anytime soon. RJ thanks I'm wrong on that. I don't work for NASA, I only know what I read in the papers. I hope that I'm wrong. I hope the Biden administration will do what it takes and we do have a successful manned mission. But I am a pessimistic asshole, so I'll believe it when I'm seeing it.

Yeah, I know, my opinion is worth less than a pile of shit, unless you agree with it of course.

 

Anybody remember the Superconducting Super Collider?

 

I have ZERO issues with anything you just said ... I agree with more of it than you may think.  My *personal* opinion is that 2024 won't happen ... but, for now, it is "the plan" and there's nothing changing it, until it changes.

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

18 minutes ago, RamjetFDO said:

 

I have ZERO issues with anything you just said ... I agree with more of it than you may think.  My *personal* opinion is that 2024 won't happen ... but, for now, it is "the plan" and there's nothing changing it, until it changes.

 

You mean the pessimistic asshole part of it?

 

Let me ask you something else, while you are here:

At the risk of getting political, and its fine if you don't want to go there--

You mentioned the Obama administration "threw it all aside". Would you elaborate on this?

 

[RamjetFDO 10655]

6 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

You mean the pessimistic asshole part of it?

 

Let me ask you something else, while you are here:

At the risk of getting political, and its fine if you don't want to go there--

You mentioned the Obama administration "threw it all aside". Would you elaborate on this?

 

 

I'm referring to the Constellation program that was going to be the follow-on to the Space Shuttle program.  

YES - the Bush admin put an end-of-life date on the Shuttle, but his admin had CxP ready and working as the takeover.  Obama canned it in 2010 before the Shuttle program even ended - dooming us to the longest stretch between manned launches from our own soil on our own rockets in US space program history (only recently rectified in May of this year).   Not to mention the INCREDIBLE loss of intellectual capital that was (literally) thrown away when 90+ percent of the Mission Control, mission design, crew training, and KSC operational support work force was let go at (almost literally) wheels-stop on STS-135 in 2011.

The Trump admin restarted the effort with Artemis in 2017.

If Biden follows through on what he said, Artemis will most likely be canned, too.

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

 

Thanks for the response.

There was so much bullshit about Obama being slung around that legitimate (imo) criticism gets lost in the chaff.

I did some survey work on the land the Blue Origin campus sits on in West Texas a handful of years ago. I managed to witness a test of their BE-3 rocket, which was cool. 3 out of the 4 engineers I talked to were ex-NASA who had been let go or bought out when the shuttle program ended. The other was from Boeing.

 

[Hmbre97 6337]

I may be remembering things wrong but I thought that everyone saw the move to remove NASA/govt from the role of vehicle developement as a positive? Hasn't it kinda worked out for the better in hindsight?  

[RamjetFDO 10655]

27 minutes ago, Hmbre97 said:

I may be remembering things wrong but I thought that everyone saw the move to remove NASA/govt from the role of vehicle developement as a positive? Hasn't it kinda worked out for the better in hindsight?  

 

... for regular commercial (i.e., repeatable) launches, yes.  Go Commercial Space Team Go!

... for "exploration", it's not there yet.  It might be one day, but not yet.  I think Falcon Heavy is getting close to the capacity -- but not yet. 

[Captainant 28589]

1 hour ago, RamjetFDO said:

... for "exploration", it's not there yet.  It might be one day, but not yet.  I think Falcon Heavy is getting close to the capacity -- but not yet. 

What's your take on Starship? It's still in development but they're building and flying test units with a commercial flight scheduled for 2021. And it's designed to use falcon cores as boosters

[RamjetFDO 10655]

15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

What's your take on Starship? It's still in development but they're building and flying test units with a commercial flight scheduled for 2021. And it's designed to use falcon cores as boosters

 

Right now?  A really cool looking gimmick.  Even if it never goes anywhere, it's been an awesome advertising campaign while they ramp up Crew Dragon into regular flights.

But ... if they *do* make it into something, I'll need to see a lot of their abort mode capabilities, crew safety items, redundancies, etc.  It seems very "single point failure" at the moment.

[wild_turkey 3299]

I don’t know how feasible the 2024 goal is, but I like knowing that a plan to return to the moon is in the works, even if the timeframe is aggressive and we fall short of that by a few years. I would also like to believe that manned missions to Mars will occur in my lifetime.

I would be disappointed if the current plans for the moon get scrapped. Regardless of who occupies the White House last year, or next year, or 10 years from now, it seems highly inefficient for each new political administration to abruptly cancel plans made under the previous administration. If there is the feeling that research efforts need to be focused on other things, then great, but let’s find new funding to support that without cannibalizing existing projects.

[RamjetFDO 10655]

Just now, wild_turkey said:

... but let’s find new funding to support that without cannibalizing existing projects.

 

I'm in.

[Pato del Muerto 53566]

We really should restart the SSC project. It’s not like those tunnels disappeared. Unless the LHC in Europe would make it redundant now. 

[atomheartbevo 90665]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/25/americas/nasa-sls-moon-rocket-assembly-scn-trnd/index.html
 

Quote

The first booster segment of the Space Launch System (SLS) was stacked on top of the mobile launcher at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida earlier this week in preparation for its maiden flight, NASA said Tuesday.

A total of 10 segments will form the twin solid rocket boosters before its first liftoff, which is expected to take place next year.

The rocket is a key part of NASA's Artemis lunar exploration program, which aims to send the first woman and next man to the Moon by 2024. NASA officials also hope the SLS will be used to reach Mars and other "deep space destinations."

This thing sounds complex.  
 

Quote

Once fully assembled, NASA said the SLS rocket will stand taller than the Statue of Liberty and have about 15% more thrust at liftoff than the Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo missions about 50 years ago, making it the most powerful rocket ever built.

Quote

NASA's Artemis I mission is expected to launch in 2021 with two test flights around the moon without astronauts. Artemis II is set to launch in 2023 with astronauts on board in preparation to have Artemis III bring astronauts to the surface of the moon.

Artemis is named after the Greek goddess of the moon and is twin sister of Apollo

 

[atomheartbevo 90665]

So, uhh, 18 astronaught candidates for the moon were announced.

https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-astronauts-for-moon-landing-unveiled

Quote

NASA has selected a group of astronauts to prepare for and possibly fly to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years.

NASA's newly-announced "Artemis Team" includes 18 men and women who will pave the way for the next human missions to orbit and land on the moon since the Apollo program ended in 1972. The cadre includes the first woman and next U.S. man to step foot on the moon, although specific mission assignments have yet to be made.

"It is really amazing to think that the next man and the first woman on the moon are among the names that we just read and they may be standing in the room right now," Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday (Dec. 9) at a meeting of the National Space Council at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. "I give you the heroes of the future who will carry us back to the moon and beyond."

As directed by the White House, NASA is working towards returning humans to the surface of the moon by 2024. The space agency's Artemis program, named for the twin sister of Apollo, is scheduled to begin sending robotic missions in 2021, followed by the launch of the Artemis II crew into lunar orbit in 2023.

 

[atomheartbevo 90665]

The 18 members of NASA's Artemis Team, from top left to bottom right: Joe Acaba, Kayla Barron, Raja Chari, Matthew Dominick, Victor Glover, Woody Hoburg, Jonny Kim, Christina Koch, Kjell Lindgren, Nicole Mann, Anne McClain, Jessica Meir, Jasmin Moghbeli, Kate Rubins, Frank Rubio, Scott Tingle, Jessica Watkins and Stephanie Wilson.  (Image credit: NASA via collectSPACE.com)

x, 3, x, x, x, x

x, 4, x, 5, 6, 7

1, A, x, x, 8, 2,

That is subject to change as more information/pics come to light.