https://spacenews.com/nasa-refines-plans-for-artemis-lunar-lander/ The current plan for the 2024 lunar landing is to buy a ride to the surface from a commercial vendor. That is, NASA will get astronauts to a lunar orbiting "Gateway" and then load them onto a lander that will take them to the surface, let them run around for a short while, and then get blasted back off to dock with the NASA lunar orbiter for the return home. (If that's not right, let me know!!) How many times should we test this lunar lander before we put astronauts into it for a real live landing on the moon? When we did this 50 years ago, we ran our lunar lander through a number of serious tests including on the Moon before putting humans into it. Testing on Earth was NOT considered good enough. (The last test involved burning the rockets until they ran out of fuel, which meant that lander went off into the solar system, never to be seen again, so far.) This seems like a tight schedule to me. We don't have a vender yet. Vendors haven't even said what launch capability they will require. Launch capability could require the SLS (an option given those who want to create a lander), and the first possible launch of the SLS can't happen before 2021. On the funding side, the administration cut $4 billion from Pell grants for education to add to NASA. https://www.denverpost.com/2019/08/24/nasa-cu-boulders-aerospace-engineering/ I hope that's a mistake! Taking $4B to cover $1.6B??? But, either way it shows a priority of lunar landing over education. Why?
Trump has created $1.2 trillion deficit spending for the next ten years with none of it to be used for grand projects to benefit the future or for national emergencies (like wars and disasters). This is equivalent to 1200 of those billion$ you mention. Since no one seems to care about deficit spending, NASA's entire budget could be doubled, and the $4B is nothing more than a rounding error. This is not an issue about funding...this is about idiots and politics...
Nowadays we can draft spacecraft on computers and run tests on the model using computers to simulate and analyze it.
Absolutely true. However, that doesn't relieve us of the necessity to test and verify. And, the way engineers find requirements is in part through trial. They knew exactly how the James Webb telescope would be tested, and it failed - multiple times. Not a criticism of your point - our progress in design and manufacturing is outstanding.
If they're saying 2024 then I'd back that up to 2030 at the earliest. Unfortunately when it comes to space projects "delays" are way more common than arriving on schedule. Especially given the current track record over the past decade or so. NASA is currently bitching at Elon Musk for his new shiny space shuttle thing because they're tired of hitching rides with Russia and his Dragon Capsule isn't ready yet and James Webb was supposed to launch when again? I love the optimism and enthusiasm of scientists and engineers. I'm a huge space nerd I mark my calendar off with this stuff. But when it comes to timelines regarding anything to do with space engineering then it's best to take whatever they say and add 5 years or so to compensate for setbacks and bureaucratic BS.
But but but Australia is entering the space race Scomo said so! ( our Pm Scott Morrison, only barely tolerated here) It is simple Trump wants more than anything a big history making skid mark, oops I mean mark
The Indians might just beat you to it anyway https://www.indiatoday.in/science/s...lander-nasa-us-wilbur-ross-1606315-2019-10-04
