Artemis III - With SpaceX Lander?

[rockytopva]

Are any of these private commercial landers ready for the moon yet?

Human Landing System - NASA

Editor’s Note: NASA is updating this webpage to align with the latest Artemis program updates announced in February and National Space Policy initiatives

www.nasa.gov

 

[SovereignGrace]

Not that I know of, but Ralph Kramden threatened to send his wife, Alice, to the moon.

 

[Ben1445]

 

[atpollard]

We have successfully regained the Apollo 8 (1968) capability to fly around the moon without landing on it after only 54 years of progress in Manned Spaceflight following the end of the Apollo Program.

[Just for the record, both the ISS and Artemis mission could have been achieved in the 1970's using Atlas and Delta rockets if we had not squandered the money on a SATURN V, SHUTTLE (STS) and CONSTELLATION (ARES V) that sucked up the whole budget to actually DO anything.]

We should have decades of data from long-term occupation on the Moon to know if Mars is even an option, instead of ZERO data on living in partial gravity.

 

[Ascetic X]

We have successfully regained the Apollo 8 (1968) capability to fly around the moon without landing on it after only 54 years of progress in Manned Spaceflight following the end of the Apollo Program.

[Just for the record, both the ISS and Artemis mission could have been achieved in the 1970's using Atlas and Delta rockets if we had not squandered the money on a SATURN V, SHUTTLE (STS) and CONSTELLATION (ARES V) that sucked up the whole budget to actually DO anything.]

We should have decades of data from long-term occupation on the Moon to know if Mars is even an option, instead of ZERO data on living in partial gravity.

It is all very fishy. Land on moon and explore it in 1969. Just fly by it in 2025.

I think the goal is to someday set up military bases with robots that can launch weapons back at enemies on Earth.

Humans are harmed by radiation in space.

 

[atpollard]

It is all very fishy. Land on moon and explore it in 1969. Just fly by it in 2025.

I think the goal is to someday set up military bases with robots that can launch weapons back at enemies on Earth.

Humans are harmed by radiation in space.

I think it is less sinister and more petty.

In the 1960's Russia launched a rocket into orbit and a man into orbit first, so the US was not going to be "beat" by Russia and set a goal of a "man on the moon by the end of the decade" to PROVE that we were better than the "bad guys". [Typical petty national politics unchanged since the 1600's.]

In the new millennium, China announces that it is going to place a man on the moon and build a base there. Well, petty politics will not let any Chinese Communists be better than America ... so we better do it first [again]. If China gets there first, then we will just have to put American boots and a flag on Mars (because that's what we do).

 

[Ascetic X]

I think it is less sinister and more petty.

In the 1960's Russia launched a rocket into orbit and a man into orbit first, so the US was not going to be "beat" by Russia and set a goal of a "man on the moon by the end of the decade" to PROVE that we were better than the "bad guys". [Typical petty national politics unchanged since the 1600's.]

In the new millennium, China announces that it is going to place a man on the moon and build a base there. Well, petty politics will not let any Chinese Communists be better than America ... so we better do it first [again]. If China gets there first, then we will just have to put American boots and a flag on Mars (because that's what we do).

I seriously doubt any base with humans will be installed on the moon or Mars. Humanoid robots maybe.

No air. No water. The gamma rays are far too intense for any practical long-term shielding.

 

[JonC]

I seriously doubt any base with humans will be installed on the moon or Mars. Humanoid robots maybe.

No air. No water. The gamma rays are far too intense for any practical long-term shielding.

I don't see radiation being an issue. I read an article putting the rate at 13.2 μGy/hour (1.32 mrem/hr). .... which is far lower than I would have thought.

But I question the logistics and cost (building and keeping a base supplied).

The benefit would have to outweigh the cost.

 

[rockytopva]

I don't see radiation being an issue. I read an article putting the rate at 13.2 μGy/hour (1.32 mrem/hr). .... which is far lower than I would have thought.

But I question the logistics and cost (building and keeping a base supplied).

The benefit would have to outweigh the cost.

Logistics and cost... How long would a billion dollars per astronaut go?

 

[atpollard]

I don't see radiation being an issue. I read an article putting the rate at 13.2 μGy/hour (1.32 mrem/hr). .... which is far lower than I would have thought.

But I question the logistics and cost (building and keeping a base supplied).

The benefit would have to outweigh the cost.

We have the lessons from the Apollo Program ... It only needs to last until China abandons its plans (plus 1 Presidential Election), then it can be abandoned (like Apollo and Skylab and the Shuttle and Ares V ... and the ISS imminently). It is the reason that we have so little real progress after 60 years of funding the NASA "political football".

 

[atpollard]

Logistics and cost... How long would a billion dollars per astronaut go?

NASA needs to shift back to a DARPA-like role of pushing frontiers to create a foothold for Commercial to build upon. The ISS should have been a NASA power Module in LEO that anyone could connect a module to and build a destination. Then it would still be growing with new Bigelow and Spacex modules and modules from Japan and ESA and India and China and Russia and Lockheed and Boeing and anyone else that had a reason to want to be in LEO with NASA free to concentrate on researching new technology (like Plug Nozzles and Orbital Fuel Transfer).

 

[JonC]

Logistics and cost... How long would a billion dollars per astronaut go?

Dunno.

I was thinking of the whole cost (building a structure, supplying it, etc).

Then there is the purpose. What would the purpose be for having a station on the moon?

 

[Ascetic X]

Dunno.

I was thinking of the whole cost (building a structure, supplying it, etc).

Then there is the purpose. What would the purpose be for having a station on the moon?

As a launching pad for moon to Earth weapons.

 

[JonC]

As a launching pad for moon to Earth weapons.

Or aliens.

 

[Ben1445]

Apparently it’s cheaper than paying for local infrastructure.