• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Artemis stacking begins

There are possibly more problems with the launch tower than with the rocket.

Why the Artemis/SLS is not fit for purpose while Apollo/Saturn seemingly was:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

It seems it's basically down to money. Throw enough at the problems and they will go away. The cadence of launches could then be increased to the level last seen in the 60s and early 70s. Perhaps it's just not worth the effort. In time China might come to realise that as well.
 
Asbo Zaprudder said:
There are possibly more problems with the launch tower than with the rocket.

Why the Artemis/SLS is not fit for purpose while Apollo/Saturn seemingly was:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

It seems it's basically down to money. Throw enough at the problems and they will go away. The cadence of launches could then be increased to the level last seen in the 60s and early 70s. Perhaps it's just not worth the effort. In time China might come to realise that as well.
Click to expand...
If they'd just went with a Delta IV multiple launch system early on in the decision process for Constellation, we'd be there by now. It was cheaper, it existed it would work, and there could have been development. More launches could have brought Delta IV's cost down, but it never would have cost what SLS will. There was even an alternate launcher as large as Ares V, larger actually using Delta IV hardware given the name Longfellow, but it might have had trouble getting in the VAB doors. SLS is mostly just a poor rehash of Ares V with less payload.

It's not like NASA didn't used to know how to work with fueling a heavy lift hydrolox rocket. They were getting a quarterly launch cadence per year by the time the shuttle was retired.
 
I doubt it's worth the US or any other nation having a manned space program if it's spending a small fraction if what is required to make it successful. In that case, it's preferable to invest that money in unmanned exploration and resource exploitation where it makes sense to do so.

What are the goals and are they economically viable? If creating permanent, self-sustaining offworld colonies is not affordable, then perhaps stop pretending that goal is achievable. If mining resources in space is uneconomic, then leave them where they are. Make the best of what we already have. If a world population of billions is unsustainable, take steps to reduce that population ethically using AI and robotics that aren't built by narcissistic madmen with hidden agendas. If an extinction level event happens, it happens. So it goes...

There is probably a reason that the ancient Egyptians stopped building useless pyramids.
 
Asbo Zaprudder said:
I doubt it's worth the US or any other nation having a manned space program if it's spending a small fraction if what is required to make it successful. In that case, it's preferable to invest that money in unmanned exploration and resource exploitation where it makes sense to do so.

What are the goals and are they economically viable? If creating permanent, self-sustaining offworld colonies is not affordable, then perhaps stop pretending that goal is achievable. If mining resources in space is uneconomic, then leave them where they are. Make the best of what we already have. If a world population of billions is unsustainable, take steps to reduce that population ethically using AI and robotics that aren't built by narcissistic madmen with hidden agendas. If an extinction level event happens, it happens. So it goes...

There is probably a reason that the ancient Egyptians stopped building useless pyramids.
Click to expand...
I think it's more like China giving up on expeditions after Zhang He voyages. China went into decline for centuries against the west.

To demonstrate about Delta IV

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Orion went into orbit 11 years ago. Obviously it's gone now, but I think an alternate Lunar architecture could be derived using Blue Origin and SpaceX hardware.
 
What are the long-term goals? Merely landing men on the Moon and returning them to Earth again achieves nothing. Creating a Gateway station is a fatuous folly if it's hardly used.

NASA's budget for 2026 is $24.2 billion or 0.35% of the total federal budget (a reduction of $1.2 billion from 2025). Imagine what NASA could do with 20 times that budget, which is by how much DJT proposes expanding the US military budget. However, what would be the purpose of a vastly expanded space infrastructure? What is the gain? What is the long-term plan? Why would such a fantastical prospect be preferable to providing much-needed social programs in the US? Which won't happen either, of course.
 
Asbo Zaprudder said:
What are the long-term goals? Merely landing men on the Moon and returning them to Earth again achieves nothing. Creating a Gateway station is a fatuous folly if it's hardly used.

NASA's budget for 2026 is $24.2 billion or 0.35% of the total federal budget (a reduction of $1.2 billion from 2025). Imagine what NASA could do with 20 times that budget, which is by how much DJT proposes expanding the US military budget. However, what would be the purpose of a vastly expanded space infrastructure? What is the gain? What is the long-term plan? Why would such a fantastical prospect be preferable to providing much-needed social programs in the US? Which won't happen either, of course.
Click to expand...
I think you can do both. It won't happen under this wreck of a proto-dictatorship, of course. But to answer the question, if we ever DO want to seriously consider moving to other worlds, or just building habitats in space, which I think is a good idea for various reasons I'll be happy to discuss in incredibly boring detail, the moon is the gateway.

It's close enough to utilize and it has a lot of what we need, to make those first real steps off world. If it has water, apart from nitrates and phosphors, we're mostly all good. But what we don't know is how human bodies handle low-g. There's almost no data at all. Plenty of data on microgravity but i don't necessarily think that's always going to be applicable. If it turns out humans can thrive for long durations in low-g, maybe even better than in low-g, then that alone is reason to go. But we won't know until we try.
 
New annoucements today about a revamping of the Artemis plan. Some of the highlights is that they're moving the landing mission to Artemis IV, Artemis III will now be an Earth orbit test rendezvous with the landing craft (whichever landing craft is ready), and the SLS Block 1b and Exploration Upper Stage are cancelled, in favor of a new "standardized" upper stage for Artemis IV+. The overall goal is boosting launch cadence and reliability.

arstechnica.com

NASA shakes up its Artemis program to speed up lunar return

Launching SLS every three and a half years or so is not a recipe for success."
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
 
David cgc said:
New annoucements today about a revamping of the Artemis plan. Some of the highlights is that they're moving the landing mission to Artemis IV, Artemis III will now be an Earth orbit test rendezvous with the landing craft (whichever landing craft is ready), and the SLS Block 1b and Exploration Upper Stage are cancelled, in favor of a new "standardized" upper stage for Artemis IV+. The overall goal is boosting launch cadence and reliability.

arstechnica.com

NASA shakes up its Artemis program to speed up lunar return

Launching SLS every three and a half years or so is not a recipe for success."
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
Click to expand...
Cancelling Block 1b makes sense, seeing as SLS looks to be cancelled:

"Artemis IV, V (and any additional missions, should there be) will use a “standardized” upper stage"

that bit. They'll fly what hardware they have left and call it a day. After 25 fucking years of this, we maybe get flags and footprints again. goddamn.
 
Asbo Zaprudder said:
Well, apart from the fact no-one has even built a suitable lander yet.
Click to expand...
The fact that they suggested during the press conference that it was conceivable that A3 would be able to do test dockings with not just either but both the Blue Moon and Starship HLS in less than a year and a half seems insane to me. Of course, what do I know? I think using Starship as a lunar lander is already nuts, but clearly depending on multiple first-of-their-kind mid-space refuelings and a having a sheer ten-story drop from the spacecraft door to the lunar surface makes perfect sense to someone at NASA.
 
David cgc said:
The fact that they suggested during the press conference that it was conceivable that A3 would be able to do test dockings with not just either but both the Blue Moon and Starship HLS in less than a year and a half seems insane to me. Of course, what do I know? I think using Starship as a lunar lander is already nuts, but clearly depending on multiple first-of-their-kind mid-space refuelings and a having a sheer ten-story drop from the spacecraft door to the lunar surface makes perfect sense to someone at NASA.
Click to expand...
Magical thinking is increasingly common nowadays. Perhaps they're hoping AI will finish the job.
 
Candleicious Ghost said:
Haha... How can you possibly have planned out a mission to the Moon but no option to land, that's like making cars with the wheels as options later on, you just get the body and all the guts inside
Click to expand...
Blue Origin's lander is probably the most realisable in the time frame as SpaceX have yet even to orbit their big metal can or modify it as a lander, never mind work out how to refuel it, but the design looks very sketchy to me. Where are the communications dishes, rendezvous radar and RCS thrusters? There would need to be two SLS launches per landing, but that was going to be the case anyway. That would mean double the cadence in the one year, Even if it does happen and not get cancelled due to the US economy going tits up soon, it will likely not be before 2030 in my opinion. From Scott Manley's video, there look to be two different upgraded versions of the interim cryogenic propulsion stage, which I doubt is the case.
 
Last edited:
Asbo Zaprudder said:
Blue Origin's lander is probably the most realisable in the time frame as SpaceX have yet even to orbit their big metal can or modify it as a lander, never mind work out how to refuel it, but the design looks very sketchy to me. Where are the communications dishes, rendezvous radar and RCS thrusters? There would need to be two SLS launches per landing, but that was going to be the case anyway. That would mean double the cadence in the one year, Even if it does happen and not get cancelled due to the US economy going tits up soon, it will likely not be before 2030 in my opinion. From Scott Manley's video, there look to be two different upgraded versions of the interim cryogenic propulsion stage, which I doubt is the case.
Click to expand...
Michaud could handle the tanking cadence, and there are enough segment casings already, if they're still going to reuse the old stockpile for the SRB's till they're gone ( that WAS the plan but honestly don't know, anymore) the lander wasn't planned around 130 tons, so i don't know what they would be considering now, i still have some access to pre-press stuff but not much and I really don't bother, anymore. @publiusr might.

it all comes down to money. Trump's not going to see a moon landing during his term, hopefully not in his lifetime, so I don't know why he'd bother. the rest of the country isn't Northern Alabama so I just don't know why congress would care, either.
 
XCV330 said:
Michaud could handle the tanking cadence, and there are enough segment casings already, if they're still going to reuse the old stockpile for the SRB's till they're gone ( that WAS the plan but honestly don't know, anymore) the lander wasn't planned around 130 tons, so i don't know what they would be considering now, i still have some access to pre-press stuff but not much and I really don't bother, anymore. @publiusr might.

it all comes down to money. Trump's not going to see a moon landing during his term, hopefully not in his lifetime, so I don't know why he'd bother. the rest of the country isn't Northern Alabama so I just don't know why congress would care, either.
Click to expand...
If it isn't promoting his brand and making him money, DJT couldn't care less. I doubt even China will make it to the Moon before 2029. I could be proved wrong, but we'd see a lot more obvious activity of them testing their hardware.
 
I can see Cruz and others waiting out the Trump administration.

ULA should have had Vulcan be Pyrios:

That would have kicked solids to the curb, and NorGrum nozzles a non-issue.

EUS can be brought back for probe use perhaps…a bit more rugged than Centaur
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nerroth
Toyota/JAXA Lunar Cruiser (Artemis program lunar rover)
Replies
16
Views
750
publiusr
P
Just a Bill
Cameras used to film TOS (BTS)
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Just a Bill
Just a Bill
Dryson
A Gift from Alpha Point and the U.S.S. Solare - Snowflakes
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Dryson
Dryson
Kai "the spy"
  • Poll
Contest: VOTE SF&F Avatar Contest: The TrekBBS Acting in SF&F Award 2025
Replies
4
Views
258
Kai "the spy"
Kai "the spy"
CerritosExplorer84
Star Trek Lower Decks finale was today a year ago.
Replies
2
Views
619
Cyfa
Cyfa
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top