Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Though on the bright side, its appears ULA's new rocket did its job.

---

Though on the not-so-bright side, it's just another already-outdated disposable rocket, provided at high cost to the only high-cost customer, the US government/taxpayer.

---

Why use SpaceX when you can spend 10x the amount on an unproven solution? We gotta keep Lockheed and Boeing ripping off the American taxpayer.

---

Going with a sole supplier has its own drawbacks. I don't want SpaceX or anyone else to be a sole supplier in anything

Bubblez said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Though on the bright side, its appears ULA's new rocket did its job.

---

Though on the not-so-bright side, it's just another already-outdated disposable rocket, provided at high cost to the only high-cost customer, the US government/taxpayer.

---

Why use SpaceX when you can spend 10x the amount on an unproven solution? We gotta keep Lockheed and Boeing ripping off the American taxpayer.

---

Going with a sole supplier has its own drawbacks. I don't want SpaceX or anyone else to be a sole supplier in anything

---

I agree but ULA isn't it. They have a poor track record.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Though on the bright side, its appears ULA's new rocket did its job.

---

Though on the not-so-bright side, it's just another already-outdated disposable rocket, provided at high cost to the only high-cost customer, the US government/taxpayer.

---

Why use SpaceX when you can spend 10x the amount on an unproven solution? We gotta keep Lockheed and Boeing ripping off the American taxpayer.

---

Going with a sole supplier has its own drawbacks. I don't want SpaceX or anyone else to be a sole supplier in anything

---

I agree but ULA isn't it. They have a poor track record.

---

Did the US government choose ULA or did Astrobotic?

Kansas Kid said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Though on the bright side, its appears ULA's new rocket did its job.

---

Though on the not-so-bright side, it's just another already-outdated disposable rocket, provided at high cost to the only high-cost customer, the US government/taxpayer.

---

Why use SpaceX when you can spend 10x the amount on an unproven solution? We gotta keep Lockheed and Boeing ripping off the American taxpayer.

---

Going with a sole supplier has its own drawbacks. I don't want SpaceX or anyone else to be a sole supplier in anything

---

I agree but ULA isn't it. They have a poor track record.

---

How does ULA have a poor track record?

Looks like it's on life support but only another day plus left.

In a major shocker to folks following the Artemis Program, NASA Administrator Nelson just announced delays to the next two Artemis launches.
Artemis 2 is delayed until September 2025
Artemis 3 is delayed until September 2026

...and by major shocker, I mean, "not a shocker in the least".

LOL on Artemis III.

Agreed

Artemis should just be cancelled. Waste, and grossly outdated, at best.

Yes, Artemis is complex. But by bringing SpaceX and Blue Origin on board with reusable landers and depots to store cryogenic fuels, NASA is finally moving us into a second era of much more sustainable spaceflight. It will be hard at first, but this is the way.

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) January 9, 2024

And it wouldn't be until a several-more-times delayed Artemis 3 until a crew would touch down on the moon. If ever. 2 is just supposed to be a fly-by.

Meanwhile, another 3+ weeks for OFT3 for Starship:

Jessica Jensen of SpaceX says that hardware for Starship flight three will be ready in January, and that the company expects to receive an FAA license in February.

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) January 9, 2024

Makes you wonder if the Artemis 2 crew they have been showing off will stick around long enough to actually be the crew that flies it.

They really could dispense with the space suit training and physicals I think for a couple years. But gotta maintain the budget and staff. Tim's gonna be crestfallen when the inevitable happens.

Mathguy64 said:

---

Looks like it's on life support but only another day plus left.

---

At least the next mission is more auspiciously named.

Tim? Which Tim are we talking about?

Also, why would he be disappointed and what inevitably is Tim facing?

The everyday astronaut tim

Kceovaisnt- said:

---

Tim? Which Tim are we talking about?

---

Tim Dodd. He's one of the lucky few picked to go on a trip around the moon as part of the "Dear Moon" project.

It's my understanding that is not dependent on Artemis is it? They could launch people on Dragons, and transfer them to a Starship in LEO and then take them around the moon and back.

We're going interstellar now...

NASA selects bold proposal to 'swarm' Proxima Centauri with tiny probes

Rather than using conventional methods, which would take 1000 to 80,000 years, they're using a swarm of gram-scale spacecraft (so unmanned of course) that rely on directed energy lasers for propulsion. This is a collaborative effort between Space Initiatives Inc. and the Initiative for Interstellar Studies (i4is) led by Space Initiative's chief scientist Marshall Eubanks. The concept was recently selected for Phase I development as part of this year's NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program.

Quote:

---

Their proposal calls for a 100-gigawatt (GW) laser beamer boosting thousands of gram-scale space probes with laser sails to relativistic speed (~10-20% of light). They also proposed a series of terrestrial light buckets measuring a square kilometer (0.386 mi2) in diameter to catch the light signals. By their estimates, this mission concept could be ready for development around midcentury and could reach Proxima Centauri and its Earth-like exoplanet (Proxima b) by the third quarter of this century (2075 or after).

---

It's great to see them try this, but the other side of the coin any fleet we send to another star would likely get passed up in 20-50 years by better technology. And on the 3rd side of the coin, with that attitude we'll never send anything.

Interesting point. At what point would you send an interstellar mission without the almost certain event of a future mission passing it on the way to another star system?

Even if we wanted to seed that solar system with amino acids and DNA strands, gram sized payloads with minimal controllability will almost surely get sucked into the largest gravity sink near their destination, or more specifically, get eaten by Proxima Centari. Seems like a neat concept, but utterly useless.

Tim's already goal-tending a bit for Artemis;

"And for my next trick, I'm going to attempt something impossible, I'm going to TRY to compare the price of some rockets" *crowd gasps, one person faints*

This is one of the hardest and maybe dumbest things to try and get good data on. Anyone have any solid data to change these… pic.twitter.com/7f6VNMkMP1

— Everyday Astronaut (@Erdayastronaut) January 9, 2024

Actually a nice update that provides a history of the vertical tanks they are/did replace:



I didn't realize all the history of their use/plans for methane vs. water etc. To my (uneducated) mind I always felt like those vertical tanks were highly exposed/at risk.

Addictive channel;

nortex97 said:

---

Artemis should just be cancelled. Waste, and grossly outdated, at best.

Yes, Artemis is complex. But by bringing SpaceX and Blue Origin on board with reusable landers and depots to store cryogenic fuels, NASA is finally moving us into a second era of much more sustainable spaceflight. It will be hard at first, but this is the way.

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) January 9, 2024

And it wouldn't be until a several-more-times delayed Artemis 3 until a crew would touch down on the moon. If ever. 2 is just supposed to be a fly-by.

Meanwhile, another 3+ weeks for OFT3 for Starship:

Jessica Jensen of SpaceX says that hardware for Starship flight three will be ready in January, and that the company expects to receive an FAA license in February.

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) January 9, 2024

---

I'm assuming this is a hyperbole directed more at SLS and Orion than anything because yes, the SLS and Orion programs are extremely wasteful and outdated. If that's the case, then I agree with parts of the sentiment.

However, canceling the Artemis program outright also eliminates the opportunity for some incredibly advanced hardware that can actually make the moon a permanent outpost for humanity. If SLS and Orion are what I have to accept to get two reusable human and cargo lunar landers, a lunar surface station, new EVA suits, and unpressurized and pressurized rovers (that all help advance technology for Mars), I'll take it.

Besides, if Starship proves itself and truly makes SLS and Orion irrelevant, there's only so much protection Congress can provide the program before it's politically unfeasible for it to continue. I would welcome this as significant funding could be redirected to lunar surface activities.

Astrobotic working on root cause analysis for their failure. Now seems like an over-pressurization led to a prop tank failure, which is odd. I'm surprised they didn't have a relief valve. Even so, if they did dump all their helium then that's still mission over most likely.

Update #8 for Peregrine Mission One: pic.twitter.com/gyH4W6B3cc

— Astrobotic (@astrobotic) January 9, 2024

While I have always loved the Space program and would have loved to be an astronaut, I would love to see the government get out of funding it other than maybe a small amount of pure scientific, unmanned research missions. If the private sector can figure out how to make money from going to the moon, great. If not, so be it.
With the massive hole our government is in on spending, we need to stop accruing debt and eventually figure out how to reduce it as a percentage of GDP. I know people will say it isn't many dollars but that is the argument with all these programs and it adds up to real dollars we can't afford. I hope to see people on the Moon again and Mars in my lifetime but it needs to be privately funded.

rocketscience said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Artemis should just be cancelled. Waste, and grossly outdated, at best.

Yes, Artemis is complex. But by bringing SpaceX and Blue Origin on board with reusable landers and depots to store cryogenic fuels, NASA is finally moving us into a second era of much more sustainable spaceflight. It will be hard at first, but this is the way.

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) January 9, 2024

And it wouldn't be until a several-more-times delayed Artemis 3 until a crew would touch down on the moon. If ever. 2 is just supposed to be a fly-by.

Meanwhile, another 3+ weeks for OFT3 for Starship:

Jessica Jensen of SpaceX says that hardware for Starship flight three will be ready in January, and that the company expects to receive an FAA license in February.

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) January 9, 2024

---

I'm assuming this is a hyperbole directed more at SLS and Orion than anything because yes, the SLS and Orion programs are extremely wasteful and outdated. If that's the case, then I agree with parts of the sentiment.

However, canceling the Artemis program outright also eliminates the opportunity for some incredibly advanced hardware that can actually make the moon a permanent outpost for humanity. If SLS and Orion are what I have to accept to get two reusable human and cargo lunar landers, a lunar surface station, new EVA suits, and unpressurized and pressurized rovers (that all help advance technology for Mars), I'll take it.

Besides, if Starship proves itself and truly makes SLS and Orion irrelevant, there's only so much protection Congress can provide the program before it's politically unfeasible for it to continue. I would welcome this as significant funding could be redirected to lunar surface activities.

---

I don't mean it as hyperbole, respectfully. I think it's absurd what is budgeted for a near certainty failure as a timeline for this disaster.

A replacement program achieving the nominal scientific goals (which really amounts to a human outpost on the moon, which Artemis…doesn't actually accomplish), could be conceived and planned at a fraction of the cost, faster, with more commercial competition than this nasa franken-rocket. Let Werner Von Braun rest in peace, already.

Heck, ideally, just offer up some sort of government 'x-prize' for a manned lunar base by a given time, and offer liberal access to cape launch facilities/approvals to make it happen.

Artemis is corporate welfare.

Bregxit said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

While I have always loved the Space program and would have loved to be an astronaut, I would love to see the government get out of funding it other than maybe a small amount of pure scientific, unmanned research missions. If the private sector can figure out how to make money from going to the moon, great. If not, so be it.
With the massive hole our government is in on spending, we need to stop accruing debt and eventually figure out how to reduce it as a percentage of GDP. I know people will say it isn't many dollars but that is the argument with all these programs and it adds up to real dollars we can't afford. I hope to see people on the Moon again and Mars in my lifetime but it needs to be privately funded.

---

While I somewhat agree with the moon missions (regardless of how cool it is, I don't see any real reason for the government to fund those) there is much of what we do space that has valid reasons for governmental funding. For example, no private company is going to spend the money to figure out if they can divert an incoming asteroid and knock it off course. Knowing we can avoid annihilation to me is a completely valid governmental expenditure. Along those lines, learning what is needed to survive in the event we have to leave the planet at some point is valid as well.

You may disagree and that is fine. I do think there is something to be said for starting to learn this now rather than at the last minute, whether that is 10 years or 1000 years from now. These are things with no financial incentive for private space to invest in. They are things though that go toward the continuing existence of humanity.

---

I agree with the asteroid diversion as among the limited areas of funding for the government because that is national/world defense. Leaving this planet for a new colony isn't feasible in my mind. I get the theory but I think we would be better off not spending taxpayer money on missions like that.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Kceovaisnt- said:

---

Tim? Which Tim are we talking about?

---

Tim Dodd. He's one of the lucky few picked to go on a trip around the moon as part of the "Dear Moon" project.

It's my understanding that is not dependent on Artemis is it? They could launch people on Dragons, and transfer them to a Starship in LEO and then take them around the moon and back.

---

That's correct. Tim Dodd is part of Dear Moon not Artemis. This is exclusively a SpaceX mission.

Bregxit said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

While I have always loved the Space program and would have loved to be an astronaut, I would love to see the government get out of funding it other than maybe a small amount of pure scientific, unmanned research missions. If the private sector can figure out how to make money from going to the moon, great. If not, so be it.
With the massive hole our government is in on spending, we need to stop accruing debt and eventually figure out how to reduce it as a percentage of GDP. I know people will say it isn't many dollars but that is the argument with all these programs and it adds up to real dollars we can't afford. I hope to see people on the Moon again and Mars in my lifetime but it needs to be privately funded.

---

While I somewhat agree with the moon missions (regardless of how cool it is, I don't see any real reason for the government to fund those) there is much of what we do space that has valid reasons for governmental funding. For example, no private company is going to spend the money to figure out if they can divert an incoming asteroid and knock it off course. Knowing we can avoid annihilation to me is a completely valid governmental expenditure. Along those lines, learning what is needed to survive in the event we have to leave the planet at some point is valid as well.

You may disagree and that is fine. I do think there is something to be said for starting to learn this now rather than at the last minute, whether that is 10 years or 1000 years from now. These are things with no financial incentive for private space to invest in. They are things though that go toward the continuing existence of humanity.

---

Learning to live and work in the solar system is of strategic importance. There are literally worlds of resources out there that we could use. If we can land reusable rockets on the moon, especially rockets that burn methane, that goes a long ways towards conducting much more ambitious missions to Mars or to asteroids for resources. Also, with Mars being a rocky planet similar to Earth, there is incredible potential there for this country to have access to and these are worthy investments for the country.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Bregxit said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

While I have always loved the Space program and would have loved to be an astronaut, I would love to see the government get out of funding it other than maybe a small amount of pure scientific, unmanned research missions. If the private sector can figure out how to make money from going to the moon, great. If not, so be it.
With the massive hole our government is in on spending, we need to stop accruing debt and eventually figure out how to reduce it as a percentage of GDP. I know people will say it isn't many dollars but that is the argument with all these programs and it adds up to real dollars we can't afford. I hope to see people on the Moon again and Mars in my lifetime but it needs to be privately funded.

---

While I somewhat agree with the moon missions (regardless of how cool it is, I don't see any real reason for the government to fund those) there is much of what we do space that has valid reasons for governmental funding. For example, no private company is going to spend the money to figure out if they can divert an incoming asteroid and knock it off course. Knowing we can avoid annihilation to me is a completely valid governmental expenditure. Along those lines, learning what is needed to survive in the event we have to leave the planet at some point is valid as well.

You may disagree and that is fine. I do think there is something to be said for starting to learn this now rather than at the last minute, whether that is 10 years or 1000 years from now. These are things with no financial incentive for private space to invest in. They are things though that go toward the continuing existence of humanity.

---

I agree with the asteroid diversion as among the limited areas of funding for the government because that is national/world defense. Leaving this planet for a new colony isn't feasible in my mind. I get the theory but I think we would be better off not spending taxpayer money on missions like that.

---

There are serious people who are working on it though. I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime, but within a generation or two I would think multiple efforts could happen and one or two could actually succeed, to at least some extent. I think extravagantly wasteful projects like Artemis actually hurt the mid-term prospects though.

If that becomes a worthwhile investment, they the private sector will make that investment. Natural resources, whether they are on earth or space are excludable and rivalrous. There is no reason for government to be involved, just like we don't want government run mines here in earth.

I really have a hard time caring if an asteroid is ruined.

TexAgs91 said:

---

I really have a hard time caring if an asteroid is ruined.

---

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not.

I don't care if an asteroid is ruined either. My point is that government sucks at everything. Why would we give them the role to mine asteroids? They would spend 100X of taxpayer money compared to the private sector. Let private individuals take the risk and reap the rewards. They will spend a fraction of the money, and it will be their own money, rather than all of ours.

aTmAg said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I really have a hard time caring if an asteroid is ruined.

---

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not.

I don't care if an asteroid is ruined either. My point is that government sucks at everything. Why would we give them the role to mine asteroids? They would spend 100X of taxpayer money compared to the private sector. Let private individuals take the risk and reap the rewards. They will spend a fraction of the money, and it will be their own money, rather than all of ours.

---

It doesn't have to be an either/or thing. As I said, space exploration is a legitimate expense for governments for strategic reasons. I know I'll never get anywhere with you on this so there's no point in arguing it. But that doesn't stop private companies from doing the same thing. If they are so successful at doing it, I think it would make it less of a priority for governments to do it.

TexAgs91 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I really have a hard time caring if an asteroid is ruined.

---

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not.

I don't care if an asteroid is ruined either. My point is that government sucks at everything. Why would we give them the role to mine asteroids? They would spend 100X of taxpayer money compared to the private sector. Let private individuals take the risk and reap the rewards. They will spend a fraction of the money, and it will be their own money, rather than all of ours.

---

It doesn't have to be an either/or thing. As I said, space exploration is a legitimate expense for governments for strategic reasons. I know I'll never get anywhere with you on this so there's no point in arguing it. But that doesn't stop private companies from doing the same thing. If they are so successful at doing it, I think it would make it less of a priority for governments to do it.

---

While I agree with you there are merits to space exploration from a national perspective and I would love to see us do them, the same can be said about most government programs. NIH will cure diseases, food stamps will keep people from going hungry, Head start will help kids get ahead in life, etc. The problem we have is we can't afford them. This country has massive debts and it will get a lot worse with aging demographics. The other problem is these government programs, including NASA, have a horrendous track record on cost overruns, massive delays, and not achieving their objectives.

NASA is one of my pet programs. I respect the heck out of the engineers, astronauts, and support people that are the heart and soul of the program. I have always been fascinated with space and exploration. That said, tough decisions need to be made now and we need to cut back to the essentials only or we won't have a country to save.

Remember, every discretionary program is now 100% debt funded so any money spent today will cost American taxpayers essentially until the end of time.