this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2025
72 points (98.6% liked)

Space

2037 readers
13 users here now

A community to discuss space & astronomy through a STEM lens

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  2. Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
  3. 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

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ZafiraHUN@mander.xyz
otter@lemmy.ca
Bitswap@lemmy.world
otter@mander.xyz
72
Congress warned that NASA’s current plan for Artemis “cannot work” - Ars Technica (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 month 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
[–] burble@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 month ago

I'm addressing the headline that says the plan "cannot work". Starship is really shoehorned into this role, and I think a more appropriately sized lander like Blue Moon is a better option if they can get it up and running, but I don't see anything about Starship that makes this impossible, just clunky.

If NASA called the internal cryogenic fuel transfer demo a success and paid SpaceX for it, then I'm inclined to call it a success. I would love to see anything other than hearsay that says otherwise.

5 prototype launches, with design changes and fixes in between, is already a better cadence than New Glenn, Vulcan, Ariane 6, or H3. Atlas 5 can tie it if they get another Amazon launch off this month. The Starship cadence should only go up as the design matures and they start actually launching Starlinks and Tankers.