5 ms·

NASA's Artemis program is generally on track - Artemis 1 (uncrewed test flight into lunar orbit which then returned to Earth) was successful in 2022. Artemis 2

NASA's Artemis program is generally on track - Artemis 1 (uncrewed test flight into lunar orbit which then returned to Earth) was successful in 2022. Artemis 2 (humans going into lunar orbit) is scheduled for next year, and indications seem to be that it's on track. Artemis 3 (humans landing on the moon) is scheduled for 2025. So there has been very tangible progress in the form of Artemis 1, plus the schedule is to get people back on the moon in two years. Obviously it could be delayed, but we're pretty clearly out of the realm of a theoretical moon landing and into planning/implementation for a specifically planned and approved NASA mission. I would definitely put money on humans on the moon in well under 5 years. Wikipedia article about Artemis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

gibolt 4y ago
Starship will be the rocket delivering them to the surface. It is likely to have a first orbital test within the next 3 months. That will be a major milestone, approaching the capability to once again land and return humans from the lunar surface.
- 96llort 4y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- chrisco255 4y ago
  What I don't understand is why is the SLS being used to transport the humans to lunar orbit but the Starship HLS is supposed to take them to the surface? Why not just ride the Starship the whole way?
  - grecy 4y ago
    Because then there would be no reason for SLS, and all the jobs it creates. At this point it's widely accepted the SLS design is already obsolete with no reuse, is wildly expensive, and is extremely delayed. But it creates a lot of jobs in areas where congressmen want to get reelected, so they keep it going. Sooner or later it will die and Starship will take over, but it's going milk many more billions before then.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      SLS is not obsolete until Starship flies. That's probably coming soon, but it hasn't happened yet. If the delays hadn't happened it would have been around a few years before Starship and gotten some good use.
      - grecy 4y ago
        > If the delays hadn't happened it would have been around a few years before Starship and gotten some good use It costs $2.2 BILLION per launch, and it only launches ~once per year. That doesn't sound like "some good use" to me.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      When I visited the US Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL a couple years back, it was full of stuff promoting the SLS as the future of space flight, without any mention of other, non-NASA platforms. It felt like the kind of propaganda-driven alternative reality one might encounter in the Soviet Union—it's been plain for years that, at best, it's gonna be obsolete by the time it's ready, but here are all these pieces of marketing pretending it's not a giant waste of money and carefully avoiding mentioning any more-promising rockets. If a person came in without any idea what was going on in modern space flight, they'd have left the place having gotten entirely the wrong impression. It was the opposite of educational. Then again, most of it that wasn't run-down and/or broken just felt like a big, ugly, defense contractor trade show (complete with the kind of hilariously-terrible graphical collages & infographics that end up in military powerpoint slides), so that's in keeping with the rest of the vibe. Gross, definitely do not recommend. If you can convince them to let you into just the Saturn V hangar at half-off the normal ticket price, that'd be worth it.
    - szoszon 4y ago
      I'm not sure if there really is any difference between milking the taxpayers by SpaceX or Boeing/ULA/NG/AR.
      - KerrAvon 4y ago
        Despite the unfortunate presence of Apartheid Clyde, SpaceX has established a track record of actually building sustainable, reusable, reliable rockets at a reasonable cost and the traditional NASA contractor base represented by the other group has not.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
    The lander won't be a regular starship. It doesn't have a thermal protection system or the wings since they're just non-functional dead weight. They'll need another vehicle to get home.
    - chrisco255 4y ago
      Yeah I get that the lunar lander is a different thing, but presumably you could pack a return module into the Starship payload as well? Or dock with a Dragon in LEO?
96llort 4y ago
[dead]
zokier 4y ago
Artemis has been generally proceeding well, but I understand OPs attitude, considering that the progress before Artemis (i.e. pre-2017ish) was really faltering, the whole Constellation/SLS/Orion trifecta was largely a mess even if bits of them are now getting finally some use
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
> scheduled for 2025 There is no way they'll have a lander ready by then. They spent 10 years and $1B just to develop a suit before giving up. The lander RFP only went out in 2019. Their primary selection is a massive tower that's going to land on an uneven rocky surface and use the same engines to take off. There's way too much risk involved for them to ever meet that date. Apollo 12 landed on the edge of a crater with enough tilt that they were close to aborting the mission. If that happens with a starship they're all dead.

gibolt 4y ago

Starship will be the rocket delivering them to the surface. It is likely to have a first orbital test within the next 3 months. That will be a major milestone, approaching the capability to once again land and return humans from the lunar surface.

96llort 4y ago
[dead]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
chrisco255 4y ago
What I don't understand is why is the SLS being used to transport the humans to lunar orbit but the Starship HLS is supposed to take them to the surface? Why not just ride the Starship the whole way?
- grecy 4y ago
  Because then there would be no reason for SLS, and all the jobs it creates. At this point it's widely accepted the SLS design is already obsolete with no reuse, is wildly expensive, and is extremely delayed. But it creates a lot of jobs in areas where congressmen want to get reelected, so they keep it going. Sooner or later it will die and Starship will take over, but it's going milk many more billions before then.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    SLS is not obsolete until Starship flies. That's probably coming soon, but it hasn't happened yet. If the delays hadn't happened it would have been around a few years before Starship and gotten some good use.
    - grecy 4y ago
      > If the delays hadn't happened it would have been around a few years before Starship and gotten some good use It costs $2.2 BILLION per launch, and it only launches ~once per year. That doesn't sound like "some good use" to me.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    When I visited the US Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL a couple years back, it was full of stuff promoting the SLS as the future of space flight, without any mention of other, non-NASA platforms. It felt like the kind of propaganda-driven alternative reality one might encounter in the Soviet Union—it's been plain for years that, at best, it's gonna be obsolete by the time it's ready, but here are all these pieces of marketing pretending it's not a giant waste of money and carefully avoiding mentioning any more-promising rockets. If a person came in without any idea what was going on in modern space flight, they'd have left the place having gotten entirely the wrong impression. It was the opposite of educational. Then again, most of it that wasn't run-down and/or broken just felt like a big, ugly, defense contractor trade show (complete with the kind of hilariously-terrible graphical collages & infographics that end up in military powerpoint slides), so that's in keeping with the rest of the vibe. Gross, definitely do not recommend. If you can convince them to let you into just the Saturn V hangar at half-off the normal ticket price, that'd be worth it.
  - szoszon 4y ago
    I'm not sure if there really is any difference between milking the taxpayers by SpaceX or Boeing/ULA/NG/AR.
    - KerrAvon 4y ago
      Despite the unfortunate presence of Apartheid Clyde, SpaceX has established a track record of actually building sustainable, reusable, reliable rockets at a reasonable cost and the traditional NASA contractor base represented by the other group has not.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  The lander won't be a regular starship. It doesn't have a thermal protection system or the wings since they're just non-functional dead weight. They'll need another vehicle to get home.
  - chrisco255 4y ago
    Yeah I get that the lunar lander is a different thing, but presumably you could pack a return module into the Starship payload as well? Or dock with a Dragon in LEO?

96llort 4y ago

[dead]

zokier 4y ago

Artemis has been generally proceeding well, but I understand OPs attitude, considering that the progress before Artemis (i.e. pre-2017ish) was really faltering, the whole Constellation/SLS/Orion trifecta was largely a mess even if bits of them are now getting finally some use

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

> scheduled for 2025 There is no way they'll have a lander ready by then. They spent 10 years and $1B just to develop a suit before giving up. The lander RFP only went out in 2019. Their primary selection is a massive tower that's going to land on an uneven rocky surface and use the same engines to take off. There's way too much risk involved for them to ever meet that date. Apollo 12 landed on the edge of a crater with enough tilt that they were close to aborting the mission. If that happens with a starship they're all dead.