Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Moon

NASA's Human Moon Lander Program Finally Gets Full Funding in New Budget Bill (theverge.com) 55

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
If Congress' sweeping new spending bill is signed, it would finally provide full funding to some major NASA projects that have been underfunded over the last few years. From a report: Notably, NASA's program to develop a new human lunar lander would be fully funded as the president's budget requested, as will a program to develop new commercial space stations in low Earth orbit. Overall, NASA would receive $24.041 billion for 2022 in this new bill, which will fund the US government for fiscal year 2022. NASA's portion is roughly $800 million less than the $24.8 billion that President Joe Biden's budget request called for in May of 2021. However, NASA would still see a slight bump from its total funding for fiscal year 2021, which sat at $23.27 billion.

Though Congress's plan would not fully meet the president's budget request, there are a few projects that House and Senate lawmakers are finally agreeing to fund in their entirety. The bill would give NASA's human landing system the full $1.195 billion that the request asked for. Currently, NASA is developing a new human lunar lander as part of its Artemis program, an initiative to send the first woman and first person of color to the Moon. Previously, Congress showed its reluctance to give NASA the money it requested for the lander. For 2021, appropriators only provided $850 million of the requested $3.4 billion for the lander.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA's Human Moon Lander Program Finally Gets Full Funding in New Budget Bill More

NASA's Human Moon Lander Program Finally Gets Full Funding in New Budget Bill

Comments Filter:
  • The SLS and Boeing group's sinking bloated whale or Musk's Starship maybe a status quo Disruptor?

    • Re:At this point I wonder who will win? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2022 @04:15PM (#62341617) Homepage

      The human lunar lander contract is with SpaceX.

        https://www.spaceupclose.com/2... [spaceupclose.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Are they still aiming to have the first landing in 2024? That would mean getting Starship to work and demonstrating an uncrewed landing and return from the surface of the moon before then.

        • Are they still aiming to have the first landing in 2024?

          No. [youtube.com] After the Blue Origin lawsuit, NASA said the first human landing will be no earlier than 2025.

          • Are they still aiming to have the first landing in 2024?

            No. [youtube.com] After the Blue Origin lawsuit, NASA said the first human landing will be no earlier than 2025.

            With all the FAA delays they might not make that.

    • The SLS and ULA's sinking bloated whale or Musk's Starship

      The Artemis program has some very specific requirements, so Starship isn't going but maybe a customized version of it could go because they got the contract to design it. [theverge.com]

      However, the launch vehicle is another matter! Realistically, I think NASA will start with just using a Falcon Heavy since it's the best tested vehicle. However, NASA likes to keep things competitive, so they will likely contract both companies.

      However, the bad news for the ULA is that while they have enough rockets for a launch, they are

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by crow ( 16139 )

        Starship is the lunar lander plan. For mostly political reasons, crew will be launched on an SLS with an Orion capsule into lunar orbit, where they'll transfer to Starship to land on the moon and return back to Orion for return to Earth. On the plus side, it means Starship doesn't have to be human rated for Earth launch or landing, and it doesn't have to be human rated for orbital refilling. Of course, they could just dock with Dragon in Earth orbit immediately after refilling and get all the same benefi

        • Starship is the lunar lander plan.

          It seems to actually be a custom version like I thought: "The SpaceX bid is based on a derivative of the Starship rocket" [spaceupclose.com]

          As to ULA and rocket engines, they have enough stockpiled Russian rocket engines for all planned launches prior to switching over to the Vulcan rocket with the Blue Origin BE-4 engine.

          It's good to know that congress forced the ULA to switch rocket engine providers. I recall back when we were relying on Russia for space launches and it always made me uneasy. It's disappointing to know my concerns were justified but it's a relief to know we have our own homegrown rockets (but what rocket trees look like?).

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sconeu ( 64226 )

            However, Antares is the one with real issues. They're still using RD-181s, and I don't think they had a backup plan like ULA did with Vulcan.

            • It's a real issue for Northrop Grumman but with new players with rockets of their own coming online, they will either sink or swim. :)

        • "Starship is the lunar lander plan." Valid point
      • What really hurts. Blue Origin was suppose to be supplying they with engines by now, but instead B.O. seems to be falling further and further behind in development. ULA may have to start from the start all over again.

        • I don't think there is reason to sweat it unless AR1s start going into development because then you know there are real problems.

  • "Artemis program, an initiative to send the first woman and first person of color to the Moon."

    Is that really Artemis' purpose ?
    That is pathetic.
    Not to mention sexist and racist.

    Sometimes the left-wing loons are as crazy as the right-wing loons.

    • Loon/lunatic is apropos.

    • "Sometimes the left-wing loons are as crazy as the right-wing loons." Sometimes? Here in MN we have many loons, some feathered, some not.

    • "Artemis program, an initiative to send the first woman and first person of color to the Moon."

      Is that really Artemis' purpose ?

      No, it's not. You shouldn't take the word of "The Verge" or some other for-profit media site when it comes to science. The purpose is to investigate the southern pole of Luna and establish a base under the pretense of mineral extraction. Specifically, we would by trying to extract water ice to be used as fuel for missions to mars. NASA has a page outlining it [nasa.gov] because they very much like making pages for people to see as it's an important recruiting tool for luring future scientists into science.

      • It is explicit in the budget proposal. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def... [nasa.gov]

        "The President’s funding request also gives us the resources to advance America’s bipartisan Moon to Mars space exploration plan, keeping us on the path to landing the first woman and first person of color on the Moon under the Artemis program."

        That language is repeated seven more times, so I'm going to go ahead and agree with the OP's opinion that this is pathetic, racist and sexist, but add "unnecessary, unscientific and

    • How about we send a woman of color? This would free up a seat for an irrelevant white male incel like you.

    • Do you want to try to sell your hundred billion dollar hobby project as "let's send the 13th person to the moon" or do you want to invent a first that some people will care about?

    • Sometimes the left-wing loons are as crazy as the right-wing loons.

      This goal was set by President Trump, so it was exclusively right-wing loons involved in this bit of identity politics. And yes, Trump explicitly pitched it as the first woman on the moon: https://www.deccanherald.com/i... [deccanherald.com]

  • Seriously, transfer the money and all non-executive employees to SpaceX.
    Destroying a billion dollar rocket each time it is launched just because some politicians need campaign funds from Boeing is a dumb idea. The rocket costs a billion dollars but the fuel is under a million dollars. Who has money to spend a billion dollars each time we want to flush a turd down the toilet? If we have to re-use toilets, why not have reusable rockets? I mean even a billionaire reuses his toilet. Yet taxpayers have to pay fo

    • I meant get rid of SLS, the Boeing thing.

      • I don't think you need to worry much about the SLS since they can no longer get their rocket engines from Russia. When they use up the rocket engines they have then they will need to design their own or buy some from SpaceX.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sconeu ( 64226 )

          SLS doesn't use Russian engines. It uses RS-25s (SSMEs).

          • Thank you for the correction. I would note however that there are only enough engines for the four Artemis launches... unless I'm missing something.

        • You're thinking of ULA's Atlas rocket, which uses Russian RD-180 engines. There's a limited stockpile of those, but enough for planned missions.

          SLS core stage uses RS-25 engines [wikipedia.org] taken from the space shuttle program. They're really good engines, made in the US, but viciously expensive (like everything about the SLS).

          • Thank you for the info, it was the Atlas rocket I was thinking about. Also, yes, I also heard they have secured enough RD-180s for their planned missions but Atlas is being retired in favor of "Vulcan Centaur" which uses BE-4 engines.

            They have 18 RS-25 rocket engines, so that's just enough for the four Artemis launches. I don't think the SLS is going to launch more than just four times.

            • Also, yes, I also heard they have secured enough RD-180s for their planned missions but Atlas is being retired in favor of "Vulcan Centaur" which uses BE-4 engines.

              Which plans to use the BE-4 engine which was due to be delivered years ago but still isn't flight ready. No delivery date for flight ready BE-4 engines yet.

              • Interesting because from what I've read, it seems like the maiden rocket is ready and waiting for the payload. The AR1 hasn't been moved to development and there is no mention of the RD-180 even being an option, I wonder if both rocket and payload aren't ready or if they offered the payload a discount if they delayed the launch. The BE-4s are supposed to be ready this year but it's development has never really gone to plan.

    • Seriously, transfer the money and all non-executive employees to SpaceX.

      Monopolies breed complacency. Diversity breeds competition. What you are suggesting would kill all possible and future competition.

      If we have to re-use toilets, why not have reusable rockets?

      Because the first reusable first-stage rocket was launched just seven years ago. Furthermore, it was only proven to be economical in the last five years. You are basically complaining about not having a brand new technology in a field that usually takes decades to develop.

  • I thought it was this guy, back in 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (@0:55), and here (next to the lander): https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close