3 ms·

Yes we still do have the capacity to go to the Moon. It's not like we've stopped developing space-related technology. There are dozens of rocket launches each y

by mamon 6y ago

Yes we still do have the capacity to go to the Moon. It's not like we've stopped developing space-related technology. There are dozens of rocket launches each year, we have people manning the ISS all the time. The way I see it NASA is not really looking for a challenge here. Quite the opposite: they had budget cuts the last few years, so they are are looking for easy money, trying to cash out on the whole political correctness craze, #metoo, etc. Congressmen have to approve the funding for this mission, otherwise they can be publicly shamed for promoting patriarchy, white supremacy, etc.

TinkersW 6y ago
Congress is the one that has dictated the rules that NASA is operating under for Artemis, so blame them for what is essentially a corporate bonanza for Boeing and others. And no we do not currently have a rocket capable of putting a large payload on the moon, it requires significantly more DeltaV to put something on the moon(238,900 miles) than ISS(250 miles up). Falcon Heavy maybe could do it, but hey that would cut into Boeing profits.
avmich 6y ago
No, we don't have capacity to go to the Moon. How'd you define the capacity? There is no production of heavy launchers of Saturn-V class, and existing (somewhat, just a couple of launches) Falcon Heavy is not enough, at least not without, say, multiple launches. There is no production of a spacecraft capable of landing to the Moon with humans and safely getting them back, at least to the orbit around the Moon. It's questionable if Crew Dragon can fly to Moon orbit and back to Earth. On the other hand, all of that could be developed - but so everything could be developed starting, say, 1940 - yet we won't say we had the capacity to go to the Moon in 1940. We can develop everything needed, to the quality surpassing 1960-s, way faster than in 1960, given enough funding. But - there are caveats: "can" doesn't mean "already did", "way faster" doesn't mean "arbitrarily fast, e.g. by December, 2020", and "given enough funding" is being looked at differently than when JFK made his announcement. So... it's at least quite doubtful that a reasonable definition of "capacity" allows saying "we still do have the capacity to go to the Moon".

by mamon 6y ago

TinkersW 6y ago

Congress is the one that has dictated the rules that NASA is operating under for Artemis, so blame them for what is essentially a corporate bonanza for Boeing and others. And no we do not currently have a rocket capable of putting a large payload on the moon, it requires significantly more DeltaV to put something on the moon(238,900 miles) than ISS(250 miles up). Falcon Heavy maybe could do it, but hey that would cut into Boeing profits.

avmich 6y ago

No, we don't have capacity to go to the Moon. How'd you define the capacity? There is no production of heavy launchers of Saturn-V class, and existing (somewhat, just a couple of launches) Falcon Heavy is not enough, at least not without, say, multiple launches. There is no production of a spacecraft capable of landing to the Moon with humans and safely getting them back, at least to the orbit around the Moon. It's questionable if Crew Dragon can fly to Moon orbit and back to Earth. On the other hand, all of that could be developed - but so everything could be developed starting, say, 1940 - yet we won't say we had the capacity to go to the Moon in 1940. We can develop everything needed, to the quality surpassing 1960-s, way faster than in 1960, given enough funding. But - there are caveats: "can" doesn't mean "already did", "way faster" doesn't mean "arbitrarily fast, e.g. by December, 2020", and "given enough funding" is being looked at differently than when JFK made his announcement. So... it's at least quite doubtful that a reasonable definition of "capacity" allows saying "we still do have the capacity to go to the Moon".