Artemis II

[Jeepnik]

I live in a great place for watching launches from Vandenberg. Just saw a good one two days ago. But these are all pretty much just putting satellites into low earth orbit for communications, weather and spying.

But right now NASA is only days away from a manned launch, Artemis II, that will orbit the moon and return. Future mission will again bring man back to the moons surface. All this is in preparation for a permanent installation on the moon and manned flight to Mars.

To some it seems farfetched. But think about it, we went to the moon and instead of staying there we wasted time and money.

 

[vito]

I never imagined that when we reached the moon we would just stop moving ahead and settle for shuttle missions close to the Earth. After watching the moon landing in 1969 I thought that by 1990 or earlier we would be at least trying to send men to Mars. Instead we have gone over 50 years without even going back to the Moon.

I think the Artemis program is a great next step, even if 40 years late. I'm 82 and I guess I will not be around to see when we finally reach out to send a mission to Mars, or beyond.

 

[gjgalligan]

I guess I don't understand why they not going to land. They supposedly did in 1969 and the early 70s.
Did they forget how?

 

[s4s4u]

I guess I don't understand why they not going to land. They supposedly did in 1969 and the early 70s.
Did they forget how?

Perhaps we just wanna see what China has been doing on the dark side of the moon

 

[jimbo1096]

That’s a lot more complicated than just fire off a rocket pointed at the moon and they land, walk around for a while then get back in their spaceship, point it down the runway and takeoff again and come home

 

[Jeepnik]

Why not land? Simple NASA. NASA takes everything in little tiny steps. They avoid any risk at all costs. But, private enterprise is always driven by profit and profit is highest when risk is highest. But remember, in order for companies like SpaceX to launch and operate in space they need governmental approval. So, even though private enterprise is more than capable of manned missions to the moon, and likely beyond, they will never get governmental approval. Why? Because it would make NASA look bad.

And consider this, it was private enterprise that pulled NASA's butt out of the fire when they had people trapped in the ISS.

 

[norwegianblue]

Why not land? Simple NASA. NASA takes everything in little tiny steps. They avoid any risk at all costs. But, private enterprise is always driven by profit and profit is highest when risk is highest. But remember, in order for companies like SpaceX to launch and operate in space they need governmental approval. So, even though private enterprise is more than capable of manned missions to the moon, and likely beyond, they will never get governmental approval. Why? Because it would make NASA look bad.

And consider this, it was private enterprise that pulled NASA's butt out of the fire when they had people trapped in the ISS.

We have problems, for sure. But the problem is much more deeply rooted than aversion to risk. Will be interesting to see what the new administrator can do to re-calibrate the risk culture and advocate for and reallocate funding.

 

[Jeepnik]

Of course SpaceX folks also have a sense of humor that NASA lacks. You've got to admit, the ship they use to land rockets on in the Pacific has a great name "Of Course I still Love You". Or the Florida based one "Just Read The Instructions". The best NASA can do it tired old Roman gods names. Pretty much shows the lack of imagination at NASA.

 

[vito]

Circling the moon has a far better chance of success than would a landing mission. The leaders at NASA, and likely at the White House, probably realize that if this mission fails, i.e., the crew is lost, the American people might no longer support the entire program.