NASA Launches Artemis 1 Mission To the Moon (nytimes.com) 113
NASA's Artemis 1 rocket blasted off the Kennedy Space Center in the early hours of Wednesday, "lighting up the night sky and accelerating on a journey that will take an astronaut-less capsule around the moon and back," reports the New York Times. From the report: At around 1:47 a.m. Eastern time, the four engines on the rocket's core stage ignited, along with two skinnier side boosters. As the countdown hit zero, clamps holding the rocket down let go, and the vehicle slipped Earth's bonds. A few minutes later, the side boosters and then the giant core stage dropped away. The rocket's upper engine then ignited to carry the Orion spacecraft, where astronauts will sit during later missions, toward orbit. Less than the two hours after launch, the upper stage will fire one last time to send Orion on a path toward the moon. On Monday, Orion will pass within 60 miles of the moon's surface. After going around the moon for a couple of weeks, Orion will head back to Earth, splashing down on Dec. 11 in the Pacific Ocean, about 60 miles off the coast of California.
This flight, evoking the bygone Apollo era, is a crucial test for NASA's Artemis program that aims to put astronauts, after five decades of loitering in low-Earth orbit, back on the moon. For NASA, the mission ushers in a new era of lunar exploration, one that seeks to unravel scientific mysteries in the shadows of craters in the polar regions, test technologies for dreamed-of journeys to Mars and spur private enterprise to chase new entrepreneurial frontiers farther out in the solar system. [...] The launch occurred years behind schedule, and billions of dollars over budget. The delays and cost overruns of S.L.S. and Orion highlight the shortcomings of how NASA has managed its programs. The next Artemis mission, which is to take four astronauts on a journey around the moon but not to the surface, will launch no earlier than 2024. Artemis III, in which two astronauts will land near the moon's south pole, is currently scheduled for 2025, though that date is very likely to slip further into the future. NASA posted a video of the liftoff on their Twitter. Additional updates are available @NASA_SLS.
This flight, evoking the bygone Apollo era, is a crucial test for NASA's Artemis program that aims to put astronauts, after five decades of loitering in low-Earth orbit, back on the moon. For NASA, the mission ushers in a new era of lunar exploration, one that seeks to unravel scientific mysteries in the shadows of craters in the polar regions, test technologies for dreamed-of journeys to Mars and spur private enterprise to chase new entrepreneurial frontiers farther out in the solar system. [...] The launch occurred years behind schedule, and billions of dollars over budget. The delays and cost overruns of S.L.S. and Orion highlight the shortcomings of how NASA has managed its programs. The next Artemis mission, which is to take four astronauts on a journey around the moon but not to the surface, will launch no earlier than 2024. Artemis III, in which two astronauts will land near the moon's south pole, is currently scheduled for 2025, though that date is very likely to slip further into the future. NASA posted a video of the liftoff on their Twitter. Additional updates are available @NASA_SLS.
Gorgeous launch (Score:3, Interesting)
The launch was glorious. The biggest problem seems to have been a network switch that chose that moment to fail.
Still, mixed feelings. Would a Wickwick event have been better? Now, "old space" will get more $billions and more years to build the next one-off, old-technology rocket, while spreading pork far and wide.
Re: Gorgeous launch (Score:2)
Was 5:47pm here - glad to see a launch without bleary eyes for a change. And yes, it was great to see.
NASA cops its fair share of shit but when they do something they do it within tighter parameters and with lower risk. Delays and overruns are better than seeing sky candles turn right way up.
Re: Gorgeous launch (Score:2)
You a kiwi or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ask and ye shall receive [nasa.gov].
Re: (Score:3)
Most launches are out to ISS. The ISS's orbit is inclined to permit it to also be reachable from the Baikonur cosmodrome. A minimum delta-v insertion into that inclined orbit requires launching at (or near) a specific time so you are in the same plane as the station.
The more general answer is "Launch windows are defined largely by the target orbit for the payload." That's what drives everything.
Sometimes it does feel like every launch window is in the middle of the night. :/
Re: (Score:1)
This launch was not to the ISS, so the ISS's orbital inclination does not matter unless the ISS just happens to be flying overhead when launching, and their software accounts for all other orbiting stuff and delays launch accordingly.
Artemis 1 only spent like 2 hours in orbit before doing the trans-lunar injection burn and leaving orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still, mixed feelings. Would a Wickwick event have been better? Now, "old space" will get more $billions and more years to build the next one-off, old-technology rocket, while spreading pork far and wide.
The more competition there is in space, the better.
Re: (Score:2)
more years to build the next one-off, old-technology rocket
But Elon! You can spend time on the goal, or you can add a bunch of scope creep. Add the new features later in version 2.0.
What's wrong with spreading pork? (Score:2)
I mean, hasn't anyone here ever done a large project in a private company before? It's the same thing dragging it over the finish line. How many projects at your office just died? How many product lines failed to laun
Re: (Score:2)
We look back in 20/20 hindsight and say "look at all this waste" but the waste is always there because doing big, complicated projects involves a lot of iteration and confusion and back and forth.
Yes, it's all about iteration and confusion, and has nothing at all to do with whose district which widget is built in. /s
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the SLS has been a pork bonanza since it was called Constellation. They designed a rocket that uses four RS-25 engines that were designed to be reusable, which they throw away. And nobody is manufacturing more RS-25 engines yet, so when the 16^H^H 12 engines they have left over from Shuttle are gone (4 of them will be turned into smoke and vapor before splashing into the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and California from this morning's launch), they get to either pay Aerojet Rocketdyne a shitloa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing this big has flown for more than about a minute in 50 years.
Ultimately, what's $24B to the US?
We were at $16B to Ukraine as of last month.
2 and a half months of the Afghanistan war.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well for starters $24 billion would pretty much eradicate the homeless in America.
Wow. How expensive do you think bullets are?
Re: (Score:2)
Your analysis is entirely off the mark.
The "reason the US sucks in so many ways" is not because we don't see $24B as a lot of money, because it's not, but because the way we spend the cool $2T we pull in is shit.
Let's put that into perspective.
We pull in enough in tax revenue to develop SLS.... 76 times a year.
what I don't understand (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Who exactly do you think you're kidding at this late stage of the game? The market has clearly spoken.
Re: (Score:1)
LOL, so everyone is using something other than spaceX to launch all their satellites because disposable is cheaper? Who exactly do you think you're kidding at this late stage of the game? The market has clearly spoken.
LOL? Jeezuz K Ryste.
Hey - How much does it cost Spacex to refurb each engine. If they are charging less than it costs them to refurb and re-launch, it ain't sustainable, homie!
People act like the refurb cost is $0.00 dollars US. I very severely doubt that. There is recovery, transport, a fleet of ships even before you get back to the refurb station.
I know, I Know! - Spacex loses money on every launch, but they make up for it in volume!
Musk is saying that Spacex is going bankrupt if they don't launc
Re:what I don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Aliens. Why are you fixated on a launch envelope limiting parlor trick? It was cool when your leader first landed it, but it turns out that it isn't much more than a parlor trick.
And I'll believe that it saves money when they tell us how much money it saves.
Falcon Heavy launch cost: $1400/kg to orbit, 68,000 kg max capacity
Falcon 9 (refurbished) launch cost: $2100/kg to orbit, 22,800 kg max capacity
Falcon 9 (no reuse) launch cost: $2700/kg to orbit, 22,800 max capacity
Ariane 6 launch cost: $4700/kg to orbit, 20,000 kg max capacity
Ariane 5 launch cost: $8900/kg to orbit, 20,000 kg max capacity
Atlas V launch cost: $13000/kg to orbit, 8100 kg max capacity
Delta IV launch cost: $17000/kg to orbit, 9400 kg max capacity
Source [bloomberg.com]
There is a reason why SpaceX does 10x the launches that anyone else does. They are massively cheaper than the other "established" guys that can reliably get your shit into orbit without rapid unplanned disassembly. And they've already flown one particular Falcon 9 rocket with refurbishing 12 times so far, with more to come as they are designed for up to 100 launches.
So yeah, your snarky little post kind of diminishes the fact that SpaceX has HALF the launch cost per kg to orbit of anyone else either through intentional bias, or ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There you go with your facts again, as if they will help shut up the morons.
What is the cost to refurbish their engines? It is a simple question. But nothing that I asked.
I did not ask what Spacex is charging. I'm asking what it costs them to refurbish an engine.
What they are charging is simple to look up. I didn't ask what they charged. I didn't ask how many times a specific engine was reused. That might have been a good answer to "How much does Spacex charge?" and "How many times have their engines been re-used?" Decent enough answers. But make no mistake, they are answers t
Re: (Score:2)
That they are needlessly reusing their engines. Because
You asked "And I'll believe that it saves money when they tell us how much money it saves."
And as MachineShedFred pointed out, it saves the customer $2,600/kg.
You might not be a moron, but you are being moronic.
Re: (Score:2)
Aliens. Why are you fixated on a launch envelope limiting parlor trick? It was cool when your leader first landed it, but it turns out that it isn't much more than a parlor trick.
And I'll believe that it saves money when they tell us how much money it saves.
Falcon Heavy launch cost: $1400/kg to orbit, 68,000 kg max capacity Falcon 9 (refurbished) launch cost: $2100/kg to orbit, 22,800 kg max capacity Falcon 9 (no reuse) launch cost: $2700/kg to orbit, 22,800 max capacity Ariane 6 launch cost: $4700/kg to orbit, 20,000 kg max capacity Ariane 5 launch cost: $8900/kg to orbit, 20,000 kg max capacity Atlas V launch cost: $13000/kg to orbit, 8100 kg max capacity Delta IV launch cost: $17000/kg to orbit, 9400 kg max capacity
Source [bloomberg.com]
There is a reason why SpaceX does 10x the launches that anyone else does. They are massively cheaper than the other "established" guys that can reliably get your shit into orbit without rapid unplanned disassembly. And they've already flown one particular Falcon 9 rocket with refurbishing 12 times so far, with more to come as they are designed for up to 100 launches.
So yeah, your snarky little post kind of diminishes the fact that SpaceX has HALF the launch cost per kg to orbit of anyone else either through intentional bias, or ignorance.
Just a quick question. Is that cost what it costs Spacex, or what they charge? You do understand the effect called price undercutting, I do expect. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/s... [cbsnews.com] Happens all the time. Selling something below cost in order to gain traffic. I have not asked how many times an engine has been refurbished. I asked what it costs to retrieve and refurbish one.
Re: (Score:2)
The earlier post compared launch costs of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy with four other launch vehicles -- so a direct apples to apples comparison. Admit it, you just don't like the results.
Your whining about "refurbishment costs" is beside the point. Here's a little nugget of info for you, ArianeGroup has no refurbishments costs -- because the entire rocket is thrown away during launch. Space-X has six individual boosters that have launched ten or more times each.
Your question of SpaceX's costs is only applica
Re: (Score:2)
What does it matter what it costs them? You are hyper focused on something that doesn't matter in the least.
The only reason anyone has said anything about financial issues at SpaceX is because they're in the middle of spending billions on R&D to make a fully reusable launch system that can haul more tonnage to orbit than anything ever created, while at the same time spending billions to deploy a global internet satellite constellation to LEO on their own dime. Which, by the way, is only possible due t
Re: (Score:2)
What does it matter what it costs them? You are hyper focused on something that doesn't matter in the least.
Thank you - in my line of work, "hyper focused" is the ultimate compliment. It means I am very thorough.
Although I do know people who hate that aspect of my personality. They call it overthinking. They don't think it is a compliment, but then they aren't thinking as much. Less thinking pleases them.
Anyhow, you've answered my very simple question with saying you have no idea, and do not care. That would have been a much simpler answer.
Not liking the question is interesting though.
Re: (Score:2)
You have misinterpreted my response, so let me try again.
If they are making a positive amount of net revenue per launch, what the hell difference does it make what their refurbishment cost is? They're already the cheapest and most capable launch partner out there at half the cost of the next available rocket - why would they keep the price that low if they were losing money on each launch? Don't you think that they would instead only be 30% cheaper instead of 50% cheaper if they are making a loss with eac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If reusing cost more than replacing, they would replace even if they were operating at a loss. For reasons you point out, sometimes a supplier operates at a loss, but never at a larger than necessary loss.
Of course. That is the contract to supply a rocket at a certain cost.
What is interesting is that while a basic business decision on both parties buyer and seller - the buyer wants a steady and uninterrupted supply of the product, and the seller wants to make money. Part of the interest of the buyer is that the seller makes a profit, and part of the interest of the seller is to provide as many products as the buyer wants.
But here, it might seem like the person who asks that very simple question is calle
Re: (Score:2)
More likely the falcons are not sustaining the company PLUS the big development budget for Starship. Kill Starship and who knows.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest boondoggle is finally flying. Nice to watch. It is of course a totally useless waste of money, but so what.
It is, but I suppose it keeps talent in the industry?
At the same time, since nothing is reusable beyond the SRBs, I wonder how long it would take to manufacture another SLS? Frequency and lowering costs should be two goals of any moon based launch system.
Watching an interview on Everyday Astronaut, it would seem the ESA was ready in 2018 with their contribution and is likely able to build their transport module fairly quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
More than a year, less than 18 months? That's what I'd guess, based on projected launch schedule for the next SLS (May 2024, FYI).
Hopefully, they'll manage to pass the Wet Dress Rehearsal next time, rather than just quietly ignore the places where the Wet Dress Rehearsal didn't work out like they did this time.
Most interesting thing about SLS? It boosts 100-odd tons to LEO for $4B-odd. Two Falcon9 Heavies boost 120-odd tons to LEO for $200M...
Re: (Score:2)
We could launch 100t to LEO with 8 Delta IVs as well.
But as it turns out, our orbital manufacturing capabilities are quite small at the moment.
What's really interesting about the SLS is that it can sling 46t to the moon, while a Falcon Heavy can do somewhere around 21t.
Where this matters, is that Apollo was a notoriously spartan payload, and it weighed in at 28t. No amount of Falcon Heavies can put an Apollo on the moon, because sending up 2 payloads to meet
Assigning Blame (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It's going to take private companies finding things like ores to put NASA back into bright shining future that it once had under politicians. They'll need a slogan like "Producing the bright future of tomorrow, today!" or some other inane something. It will all be about getting that money into the politicians pockets faster than private industry, unless said private industry is already contracted with said government of said politicians. In other words, don't get your hopes up any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's not what they think. Also, they love "precedent" and love setting it. You have to be ahead of the obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Artemis didn't explode on the platform because it's basically a controlled bomb highlights the dedication, ingenuity, and fortitude of the people who work at NASA, despite the onerous burdens put on their budgets and logistics by the greedy people who hold the checkbook.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Artemis didn't explode on the platform because it's basically a controlled bomb
No more than any other rocket, since you have fuel tanks full of propellant that will burn when mixed together.
highlights the dedication, ingenuity, and fortitude of the people who work at NASA, despite the onerous burdens put on their budgets and logistics by the greedy people who hold the checkbook.
But, yes, any time you have a rocket that doesn't explode on it's first flight, it is a tribute to the dedication, ingenuity, and fortitude of the people who worked on it.
Regardless of whether you think the concept is a good one, kudos to the flight team for making it work.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It uses SRBs....so yeah a bit more like a bomb that most others these days.
Not really. Energy is energy.
Re: (Score:1)
It's all solid propellant and oxidizer and they do occasionally explode.
Once upon a time (Score:3)
What is wrong with these people (BeauHD)!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What is wrong with these people (BeauHD)!
They're just randomly assigned pseudonyms automatically attached to slashvertisements, also know as posts, stories, or articles.
It is irrational to be outraged at an RNG.
Re: Once upon a time (Score:2)
randomly assigned pseudonyms
Those bastards.
Re:Once upon a time (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You can see real-time Artemis information here: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/... [nasa.gov] It has speed, distance from earth and moon, and some views from cameras on Orion.
Site requires a browser that supports "WebAssembly"...GEEZ how lame and first-world is that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF - NY Times ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the hell do you link NY Times Articles that require a paid subscription to read.
Come on /.
-- kjh
Re: (Score:2)
If JFK were shot today, and the NY Times reported it first, all anyone would know is a clickbait headline: "Top U.S. Government Official Assaulted During President's Visit to Dallas"
No holdown clamps (Score:4, Informative)
Finally some good news... (Score:2)
I can't even remember the last good news that was posted here to Slashdot. I guess I'm happy that we got this one today...
The future (Score:3)
In another 50 years, people will be saying this flight never happened.
Re: The future (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With any luck, in 50 years there will have been many more launches like this in some form. Leaving crackpots with a lot more reality to deny.
SpaceX does video better (Score:4, Interesting)
Taking this sideways just a bit, what I saw here was an interesting failure on the really important .005% of the budget.
SpaceX provides really good video of stage transitions. This was terrible. Low res, and then it cut out. By getting good video of all the events, the whole thing lasts longer and makes for better TV. This launch will play on the nightly news (assuming people still watch that) for a 2-3 seconds. There's nothing else screen-worthy here.
When a SpaceX launch makes the news (they're so common now, they're not reported) there's the launch, the separation, and the landing. There's continuous footage at various times which allows a speaker to talk in front of something amazing happening in the background.
YES, this is not trivial to do, but if you're trying to get some goodwill while burning BILLIONS of dollars during a time with inflation and when people's retirement funds have dropped drastically, it's really important. I'll bet the cameras on the rocket were spec'd out around 2010 and the defense contractors never updated anything because "THINK OF THE PAPERWORK!!!!!"
(I knew someone at GD who spent months trying to get a vent moved on a sub design, and ultimately the vent wasn't needed because the duct behind it was removed, but rather than get everything approved/modified, the vent was ultimately LEFT IN PLACE in the design because that was cheaper/easier than getting the paperwork done to approve not putting in.)
Bonds (Score:2)
"As the countdown hit zero, clamps holding the rocket down let go, and the vehicle slipped Earth's bonds."
No, it didn't. That did not happen until it reached escape velocity, much later. Unless you consider that every time you jump in the air you "slip earth's bonds." Journalists: people who know nothing about anything, except how to tell you what to think.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
A reusable interplanetary rocket? I do not know whether our definition of "cheaper" is the same...
Re:Glad finally a successful launch. Now cancel SL (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it requires an entirely different rocket
Re:Glad finally a successful launch. Now cancel SL (Score:5, Interesting)
SpaceX is only cheaper to GEO if you want to launch a (relatively small) satellite - not a bunch of humans and their equipment, supplies etc for a trip lasting several days. The same is sort of true for LEO too, although there I'd imagine SpaceX could at least look like they were close to, if not exceed the weight and safety requirement.
Using SpaceX may look useful, but at this point it would mean assembling multiple things in space to subsequently shoot them to the moon. That naturally adds cost and risk to the mission. I haven't done the numbers, but it would likely be a worse outcome than Artemis.
I can't disagree that governments tend to waste a lot of money when they do pretty much anything. It's also looking highly likely that when SpaceX does make it to the moon, they'll have done the whole project on less than one Artemis flight costs (or some other obscene looking fraction). However, for the US Government, and NASA to put all their eggs into that particular basket isn't really good sense either - we all love SpaceX, but there's no guarantee it'll continue to operate at the pace it has so far, or that it won't suffer problems as it "settles" into its new normal, or that (say) Musk turns out to be a baby eating lizard man, or whatever other crazy thing that tends to affect big businesses over time. To that end then, for Nasa to compete here, and in fact to quite comprehensively lead the way looks to be a good thing.
Lastly, there is some "prestige" (still) for governments to do things like this - the USA gets some merit points here, which now only really matter against the backdrop of China, but still sends a message that there's still a bigger boy in the playground. Even though SpaceX may be an American company, it doesn't have quite the same effect.
I should point out that whilst I'm advocating all of this, none of this is spending any of my money. I have my own government misusing that money on far less interesting things than this :-(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX is only cheaper to GEO if you want to launch a (relatively small) satellite - not a bunch of humans and their equipment, supplies etc for a trip lasting several days.
I enjoyed your comments. I have one quibble. The cargo capacity of the Falcon 9 Heavy is approximately 42,000 lb to geostationary orbit. The cargo capacity of Artimis is 11,000 lb to Lunar Orbit. I would think that the Falcon 9 Heavy would be more economical than Artimis for bringing things to Lunar Orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Falcon Heavy can get to the Moon, but isn't rated for manned flight. I expect they could certify it if they wanted to, but with Starship in the wings they probably won't bother.
Re: Glad finally a successful launch. Now cancel S (Score:2)
No SLS required.
Re: (Score:2)
Because "reusable" gets more and more expensive the further away you are from where you want to reuse something.
Re: (Score:3)
No other rocket can currently do what SLS can. That's why SLS was built. It was even more true in 1980 when it was conceived.
Starship looks pretty promising to take over its heavy lift cargo role, but "promising" and "flying reliably" are two different things. And as far as crew, Starship is not really human rateable under current rules. It doesn't have an escape system, and it doesn't have parachutes or wings. It's going to require a lot of flawless cargo flights before that gets changed.
Re: (Score:1)
"promising" and "flying reliably" are two different things.
hummm. ok.
No other rocket can currently do what SLS can
Not even SLS. That's why it's experimental, and will be at least until 2025-2028, with Artemis III. Oh, and as a side note, mass to LEO is 95 tn for SLS, and over 100 tn for Starship (acording to Wikipedia).
Re: (Score:2)
You need to update your schtick. SLS has reached orbit, demonstrating the heaviest lift capability in existence. It's also human rateable by well established means.
Starship hasn't flown, never mind to orbit. I'm sure it will, but it hasn't yet. It also has a very long and bumpy road to human rating. I'm sure it will get there, at least for going up if not landing, but it's likely to take a while.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuts ! Will we have gotten to the moon in the late 60's without government ? Or go to earth orbit in early 60's
It is dubious now why we are going to the moon again. But unless there is a business goal then it won't be cheaper with the private industry.
It is arguable if there were going to be a business of comm sats etc if governments in the world did not show it was feasible to put space in orbit.
I doubt Bell labs etc would have gone into rocketry.
Places with no government (e.g Somalia) are not attractive
Re: Glad finally a successful launch. Now cancel S (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The service module maybe. But the TLI stage? Afaik, the S-IVB of most Apollo capsules was dumped on the moon.
You have any idea what additional fuel would be necessary to make this reusable?
Re: (Score:2)
NASA has the goal of returning to the moon in 2025, although it will probably slip to 2026 now.
It seems unlikely that SpaceX will have anything ready by then for a moon landing.
Re: (Score:3)
Unlikely, it may be. But since NASA has decided to use the SpaceX Starship as the lunar lander for the Artemis Program, it's pretty much necessary that SpaceX "have anything ready by then for a moon landing"...
Re: (Score:3)
Starship HLS seems like a risky choice, but also one of the few viable ones given the lack of decent competition. It seems underpriced too, with SpaceX only getting about $2.8bn to develop it and perform two demonstration missions.
I wouldn't be surprised if Starship delays the first landing. It's a complex machine even by rocket standards, and they haven't reached orbit with it yet. After they do, they will need to demonstrate landing and turn-around capability, and then get one into lunar orbit to do the f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do remember that Luna has much lower surface gravity than Terra. Low enough that the old LM could handle a landing and takeoff. Starship can manage that much deltaV trivially without even using a Superheavy booster (though the superheavy booster is required to get the Starship to LEO). And the way I read the numbers, a fully fueled Starship in LEO could manage a flight to lunar orbit, a landing on Luna, and a ret
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, bit Starship is the second stage for the launch from Earth. It has to lift all that mass into orbit, and then be refuelled, and then restart the engines to get to the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems unlikely that SpaceX will have anything ready by then for a moon landing.
Of course not, they're focused on landing people on Mars by the end of next year!
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not, they're focused on landing people on Mars by the end of next year!
Where they can drive their Cybertrucks!
Re: (Score:2)
Despite what the woke hoards will tell you, there is no rush to put vaginas on the moon.
Man has been to the Moon, now the Moon must serve as merely a staging post to the future of Space exploration: Putting man on Mars.
Re: (Score:3)
Time to pull the plug on supporting throwaway Old Space.
Cheaper, better alternatives will do the same with a fraction of the SLS's funding, which can instead be used to support science and manned Mars missions.
MarsMarsMarsMarsMarsMarsMarsMars......seeing that we have NEVER had a permanent off-world base (not counting ISS) and Mars is several weeks (at least) travel time away, I would think we need to get our shit together for Mars by setting up bases on the Moon first for practice. If something goes sideways, at least a trip to the moon is only a couple of days (assuming rescue ships exists by that time) as opposed to weeks or MONTHS away to Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
The Moon can be used as a staging post to Mars ( using Spacex or other New Space craft to get there ).
But setting the Moon - and woke shit like Tokens On The Moon - as the goal is short-sighted and wasteful. 10 times moreso if SLS is used to get there.
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that every single Apollo astronaut that went to the moon came back, right? How was that a "one way trip" ?
You are also aware that if we were to build a "base" that part of that would be to have some kind of emergency ascent capability? If we're testing SLS and Starship with nobody on board, why can't they use that same automation capability to land one there and leave it there to be used for emergency ascent and return?
Re: (Score:2)
Time to pull the plug on supporting throwaway Old Space.
Cheaper, better alternatives will do the same with a fraction of the SLS's funding, which can instead be used to support science and manned Mars missions.
I’d like congress to ensure NASA has a dual moon budget, one targeted towards SLS and one towards new space. SLS keeps certain congress people happy, while the second is towards those who are wanting to do things differently. When politics influences the budget, you need to keep a majority happy and willing to vote for it.
Re: (Score:2)
That is no solution - it just continues wasting billions on obsolete crap.
Make all these corrupt politicans supporting SLS state *for the record* that they honestly believe it will not be bettered by Starship - for a tenth of the cost to NASA - within 2 years, and will resign if it is bettered.
See how many sign up.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to pull the plug on the tired Old Space support...given...you are one of Boeing's promoters.
Re: Glad finally a successful launch. Now cancel S (Score:2)
I have no great love for Boeing, but parody is still legal there.
Re: (Score:2)
The won't object to my website Boeing.me then ?
Re: (Score:2)
How would it be "taxpayer dollars" if McDonald's is paying the launch costs?
Did you not see the "private enterprise" in your own quote?