In recent months, it has begun dawning on US lawmakers that, absent significant intervention, China will land humans on the Moon before the United States can return there with the Artemis Program.
So far, legislators have yet to take meaningful action on this—a $10 billion infusion into NASA’s budget this summer essentially provided zero funding for efforts needed to land humans on the Moon this decade. But now a subcommittee of the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology has begun reviewing the space agency’s policy, expressing concerns about Chinese competition in civil spaceflight.
Maybe I’m an old fuddy dud, but… why do we need humans there?
This isn’t 1970. Probes are rather good now.
I’d much rather have, like, a big telescope on the dark side of the moon for the same budget. Or a swarm of probes looking for ice and other features. A Titan mission? Or heck, another grand interplanetary tour, anything.
Artemis is a boondoggle corporate giveaway. Its main purpose is to funnel money into the pockets of big contractors as quickly and efficiently as possible.
I worked on it for a year and a half, and saw so much mismanagement and self-sabotage, I can’t even say. I’ve made multiple posts about it in the past. NASA spent $10 million at least having my team fail to build something that we could have built for probably $2.5 million. Most of that money vanished into the pockets of a giant, evil corporation that mostly builds weapons. I can tell you the guys (and they were all men) that we worked with from that company were laughing all the way to the bank when they canceled our project. Now they’re launching without that component.
I have lots of feelings.
That’s disheartening. I was really excited for Artemis. Guess we can’t have nice things.
I’m still excited for Artemis. Once some of the newer heavy-lift launch vehicles increase their cadence, that will provide alternatives for the most expensive parts of the program (like SLS).
Saying it “cannot work” because of orbital refuelling seems pretty disconnect from reality. The ISS has been getting refuelled for decades. Starship has done cryogenic fuel transfer demos. The depot architecture, that SpaceX keeps topped up with random fill-in flights the way they treat Starlink with Falcon 9, seems doable.
Comparing the Chinese lunar program to Apollo misses the point. Antarctica has multiple independent bases getting resupplied and having people move in and out all the time. That’s starting to happen in LEO and should be the goal for the Moon and Mars.
Saying it “cannot work” because of orbital refuelling seems pretty disconnect from reality
how much orbital refueling experience do you have? none.
lol, how much does ANYONE have? NONE.
but you’re gonna trust felon musky when he says they’ll figure it out quickly, safely, and on budget?
the ISS has NOT been refueled. Ever. It’s been boosted. Normally this is done with docked Soyuz capsules, now it can also be done with docked crew dragon.
we’re in the early days of all this. https://www.nasa.gov/nexis/robotic-refueling-mission-3/
This is entirely inaccurate.
ISS does not use cryogenics for propulsion. Why? Because cryogenic fuel transfer is crazy hard. Starship cryogenic demonstration was just moving fuel between two tanks in the same vehicle… a trick NASA mastered and surpassed with the Shuttle external tank.
For better or worse, both China and the US view space primarily as a means to demonstrate dominance and prove technological superiority. Antarctica is significantly easier to get to, has way less tactical utility, and seems otherwise irrelevant to the conversation.
It isn’t what you think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU
The problem is the logistics. The sheer number of launches needed, the time windows, the timelines with no technical planning or milestones, the inane over complexity… This was a launch vehicle and mission designed by committee to line the pockets of donors and provide jobs to pad the job markets in influential congresspersons’ districts.
We’re using technology from the 70s on a modern launch vehicle, not because it’s cheaper (it’s much more expensive) or because it’s better (it’s measurably much worse than modern off the shelf solutions), but because of money politics.
I’ve seen that Destin video, but I don’t get the feeling that he’s thinking bigger than Apollo, which got defunded and halted. A continually occupied lunar surface base won’t work if it has to get crewed and stocked by a Saturn V or SLS.
SLS and Orion exist because of Congress maintaining STS jobs. Starship HLS exists because of tight purse strings. Blue Moon exists because of lobbying.
When was the last time you watched or thought about a Starlink launch on Falcon 9? They happen multiple times a week without any fanfare. Starship depot refueling flights are meant to be even more boring than that. The bigger hindrance is the requirement to dwell in NRHO and wait for Orion to show up.
Starship depot refueling flights are meant to be even more boring than that.
deploying satellites is dead easy compared to matching orbit with another whole spacecraft, docking with it, then pumping liquids around between them.
the fact that you think “well falcon launches multiple times a week how hard can it be” illustrates how massively out of perspective your thinking is.
Lol, Starship has done demos and it seems doable is very hilarious. I bet even people on Mars by 2026 is doable, amirite?
Yeah, it’s not there yet. But soon.
I mean, I wouldn’t doubt that it will achieve its goals, it’s very close already. If all they wanted was a single use rocket with a reusable booster and greater payload to orbit than the Saturn V at a fraction of the cost, then that has already been achieved, and that is not nothing.
Smarter Every Day actually made an in-person presentation to NASA stating the same thing with a crapload more detail.
