Space

1980 readers

45 users here now

A community to discuss space & astronomy through a STEM lens

Rules

Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
Foster a continuous learning environment.

Also keep in mind, mander.xyz's rules on politics

Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instance’s local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.

Related Communities

🔭 Science

🚀 Engineering

🌌 Art and Photography

Other Cool Links

Astronomy Picture of the Day Archive
Live Space Dashboard

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Congress warned that NASA’s current plan for Artemis “cannot work” - Ars Technica (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 week ago by otters_raft@lemmy.ca to c/space@mander.xyz

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] kata1yst@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] burble@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

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.