NASA: Artemis I We are going back to the moon Artemis I Wow, we are going back to the moon 5 days from now (from this post)! I wasn't born in time to be alive during the last moonshots, but now I will be. I don't have the level of excitement that I saw in the eyes of the people from news coverage of the old days. But, I do think it will be interesting to follow along as NASA tests the platform first and then later finally sends people back to the moon. I am personally surprised that the next launch is only a handful of days from now. The date, it sort of snuck up on me. I always knew we were going to go back to the moon. They've been laying out plans for decades, but I wasn't following them recently which is why I am surprised that it's only a few days away.
I'm excited, but I am cynical enough to suspect that we wouldn't get any support for such a mission unless there was a significant military value in doing it.
Oh, you think there's a military reason? Hmm... I wonder what it could be. Any guesses at what they're up to?
Its a PR scam. This first flight is an unmanned test, manned flights are 2 years away. If they get to manned flights. NASA is so woke they will probably never make it, they will no doubt say for equity reasons they have to include the “intellectually challenged” on the design team and crew and they will confuse degrees with radians and up with down.
Please remember that it is CONGRESS that gives the orders to NASA. NASA isn't legally allowed to NOT go to the moon. If you want to know why we're doing it, you really need to ask past presidents and congresses.
Get NASA out of the rocket building business. Northrup - Grumann must have powerful friends. The job should have gone to Musk or Bezos or anyone of a number of rocket scientist types. Moi
I agree at this point. In fact, the plug should have been pulled back when Musk made a serious pitch to NASA concerning how SpaceX could solve their need. That decision was made based on politics and where the jobs were - not on space capability. It's hard for CONGRESS (since this is a decision congress gets to make) to admit it has blown tens of billions on a failed program. Plus, NASA plus Congress have made sure that large numbers of congressional districts have citizens who would lose their jobs if SLS were canceled. Today, Musk's goal is Mars outposts. Why does congress think it needs to try to beat Musk to Mars?
It's TOTALLY legit to wonder why we're ready to spend this kind of money on putting humans on the moon. We can fully explore the moon robotically. In fact, we can build very large radio telescopes on the moon robotically - a huge advance in sensing this universe, since they can be built on the opposite side, thus perfectly shielding them from Earth's electromagnetic emissions. The cost of ANY mission that includes humans skyrockets, because the primary cost is NOT science - it is trying to keep the humans alive.
And the President. It can be easily seen that the NASA programs now generally only last a single administration. Presidents since Bush 41 have been trying to revive NASA lunar programs, but they almost never last beyond that administration. President Bush 43 started the last program, that was the Constellation Program in 2005. Only to have it axed by President Obama in 2009. The only survivor from that program is the Orion capsule.
Oh hell no. Musk is the biggest snake oil salesman in the world right now, and I do not trust him at all. His entire career has been mostly broken promises and missed deadlines, and for years has largely been just a single step from bankruptcy. And Bezos, which has never gone above LEO? That is really nothing but a vanity project in order to send Jeff himself into space, because he can afford it.
What has Musk done? Dug a super expensive tunnel under Las Vegas filled with human operated Teslas? Even Disney built a cheaper and more efficient system over 50 years ago. And where are his solar roofs? Electric powered trucks? Robo-taxis? Optimus Robot? Space-X bleeding money? Failure to deliver self-driving cars? Boring bricks? The list simply goes on and on and on. Even his Tesla car company has a slew of failures. His Roadster could operate for only a third of the promised distance, at twice the promised price. It was discontinued after only 4 years, and in 2017 started accepting deposits and pre-orders on the next model. And even though he claims it will be out "next year" for $50k, he has been saying that since 2017 and most believe the price will be in the $250k range. Or the Model 3, with a promised range of 300 miles for $35k. What was released was almost $60k, almost double of the price advertised. Last year to huge fanfare he announced the "Tesla Bot", promising it in a year for under $20k. What was shown recently is nowhere near done, and once again most expect will cost double or more if it ever is delivered. No, the guy is a snake oil salesman. Promising things that they never seem to be able to deliver, or delivering things that are not even close to what was promised. And most investment companies have been encouraging people to sell their stocks in his companies as his constant sales of his own stock to prop up his companies has destabilized the value. And revelations that most of his companies have never shown a profit is even more disturbing.
Well, the catch here is that the Constellation program failed to meet its goals. Plus, then we flipped to targeting Mars. Then, we went back to focusing on the moon again. Since Constellation, we've spent BILLIONS on the SLS, which is also a failure by any reasonable measure. That's another program that should be scrapped. I think this is what comes from having politicians make the decisions on space exploration. The Kennedy moon shot was clearly spectacular, and it inspired a gigantic investment in science education. But, there isn't any evidence that this kind of process of hugely aggressive single purpose goals is the best way to invest in exploration. --- So, why am I not a big fan of humans on the Moon (or where ever)? Today, we can explore the solar system with robotics, which have advanced spectacularly. We have a helicopter and rover working in tandem on Mars! That was hugely CHEAP in comparison, as it was focused on science, NOT on attempting to keep humans alive in space. We have the opportunity to create a giant radio telescope on the opposite side of the Moon, without the presence of humans, and shielded from Earth's radio interference! We have the possibility of creating telescopes in space that work together to form images that approximate what could be accomplished by telescopes that are many miles in diameter. We can visit asteroids. There is much we could learn by examining asteroids in search of usable materials as well as learning about the early solar system. We have real problems to work on before we can send humans on long missions. We have NO solution for protecting humans from radiation, for simulating gravity for long periods of humans in space, and we have a ways to go to figure out how to achieve higher speeds in space - which are required for human travel to all but the closest destinations. I just don't see the argument for landing humans on the moon, given the fabulous costs, unsolved problems, the low contribution to science and the large number of opportunities for scientific exploration at small fractions of the cost.
I disagree with you on that. We have spent enough time on robotics and probes. Now we must adapt our technology to support humans in hostile space environments. We need to get it right. And the Artemis I problems and delays show that we haven't gotten it right yet. There will be jobs in space that we need to know how to do. We never know when the situation will call for doing a job in a hostile outer space environment that we can't give an AI full control of the mission because it's too dangerous.
What you are saying is that further robotic exploration is not cost effective. But, that is not shown in any way. We are spending stupendous sums on the attempt to send humans to the Moon - an endeavor that has essentially zero science benefit, and where the reason for the expense is the cost of trying to keep the humans alive. I agree that Artemis I certainly does show problems with our approach. It is old technology that shows no promise for the future and the whole methodology of constructing it has been shown to be ineffective. Moreover, it points to the mistake of requiring NASA to build rockets - which was once required, but is no longer necessary. Plus, Artemis I is not progressing against some of the serious issues of humans in space (there answer for radiation of astronauts is to "go fast to shorten the trip). Artemis is entirely limited to the Moon, while NASA science has been to the Moon and is visiting a good number of bodies in the solar system, including asteroids. And, Artemis is not designed to help with that scientific exploration. As for workers in space, we really need to know what the jobs are first. Is it mining asteroids? Is it a small science outpost on Mars, like what we have in Antarctica? Is it space based construction? Is it a science outpost at a Lagrange point?
No, I didn't say that at all. This is what is called a Straw Man fallacy. Obviously they are cost-effective, but that's not even the point. The point is that we can't afford to shelve the idea of humans in space. We are at the perfect time to practice using humans in space. Our technology is mature enough to bring us around the solar system, but we're not yet at the point of leaving the solar system for a good long time yet. It's practice time! People are already using technology to survive in hostile environments like under the sea and in polar and desert areas. Why not outer space? Our future plans require entering hostile environments. It's just a sign of progress. You keep bringing up radiation. Why is that? Are you one of the people who believe that there are no ways to shield from radiation? We haven't been to the Moon for the entire time that I've been alive. Some say we can't even do it anymore, and without proof of concept, the moonshot might as well be fantasy. No, we don't need to know what jobs there are before we go into space. We can practice general procedures first and work towards specialization later as needs permit.
OK, then if it isn't cost, what's the reason for ending robotic space exploration? I don't believe we know what objectives in space actually require humans. And, what the objectives are is hugely important in terms of what it is that we try to build. Our technology is certainly not good enough to bring humans around the solar system. I think that's the wrong question. The right questions have to do with why we need humans at particular locations in space or on bodies such as Mars. The stated NASA plan is for space travel to be as fast as possible, since there is really no way to shield astronauts in the present. Maybe there will be at some time in the future. It's not me. It's NASA and the Artemis team. I don't agree that a human on the Moon is a fantasy. I just think that there isn't enough to gain to warrant the STUPENDOUS cost, at a time when we don't invest that kind of money in science on the total combination of all science missions outside NEO. Landing on the Moon is NOT a "general procedure" related to "jobs" if the real objective turns out to be on asteroids or space based manufacturing. Plus, I think we're totally ignoring the advent of serious automation and the stupendous cost differential that exists simply because of the difficulty in keeping humans alive. What is the ROI related to a job a human could do on Mars, but automation could NOT do?
Another straw man. I never said that robots and probes are coming to an end. Rather Human spaceflight should now be an addition to the projects done in outer space. You see, there's the matter of the UFO/UAP reality that we now know is real and even went before the USA Congress. That means that there's a whole new technological level that is achievable. So, any year now, or a thousand years, who knows, we might reach that level and be out the door and onto the stars. And that new level of tech will usher in a new era of tasks that will require humans to train for activities in the hostile environments of space. Why not start practicing the tasks now? I mean, every recruit in the military must go through training before they are entrusted with the duty to serve. And spaceflight requires its own set of activities and training.
You said: "I disagree with you on that. We have spent enough time on robotics and probes. " What does it mean to you that we have spent enough time on robotics and probes? Sorry, but that seems like a direct call for ending exploration of our universe with technology that doesn't require humans. First, the idea that we know UFOs exist is just not true. Next, if they ARE true, playing with our chemical power propulsion, etc. is a waste of time in attempting to reach UFO abilities. We would have to conclude that they aren't using chemical rockets to cover that kind of distance or have the performance claimed by "UFOlogists". In fact, one would have to wonder if they are robots. Maybe what UFOs mean is that we should get better with robotics rather than trying to transport Earthly humans like that. So, a conclusion that UFOs are real would mean that we should invest more heavily in theoretical physics, and possibly in some technologies. I thoroughly agree that astronauts need serious training, even when just staying in low Earth orbit. Of course, there are attempts at commercial opportunities such as "citizen astronaut" trips, and those customers are not currently getting the kind of training you refer to. But, the question was, why are we considering astronauts for Moon or Mars missions at this time?
Let me add that my objections to the decisions being made by Congress on space objectives NASA is required by law to follow is probably a minority opinion. I'm just more interested in scientific exploration. And, I think private enterprise does a better job of rockets than Congress/NASA does. And, the stupendous cost of simply keeping a human alive on a space trip to the Moon or Mars really can not help but eat NASA's science budget and force harsh tradeoffs on issues such as exploring other places in our solar system.
No, it was determined that more money would be needed to meet the goals, so President Obama killed it.
Wow, major logical fallacy and strawman argument. Exactly who is saying that robotic space exploration should be ended? Nobody that I am aware of, other than in your own mind.
