NASA has struggled to deal with the widespread sentiment that NASA has “been there, done that."
See full article...
See full article...
Artemis II is unlikely to be the cultural touchstone Apollo 8 was, and that’s OK
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Native Americans would have been better off if the European barbarians would stayed home.
Upvote
17
(19
/
-2)
I think this is a good time to remind people that he wanted to cut NASA's budget for this year by 24% and has cut the workforce by 20%. He expects praise for the accomplishments of an agency he's gutting.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
If only we would work together on more space endeavors, rather than competing with each other. Imagine where we would be if the US and USSR had collaborated instead of having a space race all those years ago.
Upvote
0
(4
/
-4)
If we were truly focused on going to Mars, we would be focusing our budget on how to live there, not how to get there. Anyone can tie a brick to their feet and go to the ocean depths. The impressive thing is doing so while alive.
Upvote
12
(14
/
-2)
Yikes indeed and very well stated!
My feelings on this are decidedly mixed. I wasn't born for the Apollo program and remember my mom wanting to gently tell me about Challenger because she knew how much space meant to me. I grew up always wanting us to do something more exciting than orbiting in LEO. The unmanned space program is a technical marvel and I've cheered its successes, but I've always wanted to see people out there, whether it's the Moon or Mars or wherever. I'm sure that's fueled my love of sci-fi.
BUT…
Now that I know more, there's just so many problems with this effort:
- We talk about wanting to go to Mars (or even permanently to the Moon) but we've known for decades that this requires advances in closed loop ecosystems & resolution of the bone and strength loss issues zero gee creates. That could be artificial (spin) gravity, the miraculous invention of strength-preserving biotech, or a miraculous continuous-acceleration drive like in The Expanse that can provide thrust gravity. There appears to be no recent interest in investing in tackling these problems. Because of that, this program feels like a dead end that's just playing pretend, and it's insulting.
- The Apollo program was a marvel of systematic testing and building of all the required capabilities to land on the Moon. Each mission either gathered data or developed the technology needed while minimizing risk to crew. The same can't be said for Artemis. All the missions basically assume no failures of significance are even possible despite plenty of reasons to know that's unwise and enough design (let alone hardware) is replaced from mission to mission to invalidate the testing that is done. The recent rearrangement of III into III & IV helps but doesn't eliminate the problem.
- I don't particularly care about the cost of the program. But I'm offended by the waste. Another commenter mentioned the importance of reuse to this effort except we're throwing reusable technology away and replacing tested designs repeatedly. It's also hard to feel inspired by a program designed to show we've still "got it" when that program feels like it has an embarrassing number of problems we're sweeping under the rug every chance we get. (Heat shield, anyone?)
- I'm concerned that we're more likely to get these astronauts killed than in Apollo. After Columbia, you'd think the response to heat shield problems would be to go back and retest until the problem is proven to have been solved rather than use human test dummies and cross our fingers. It would be tolerable if they died from something unexpected (like sinking under miles of lunar dust, or lunar dust dissolving the lander), but we have known unexplained negative test results and we're charging on anyway as if we are invincible. Maybe the change in reentry profile is enough, but there are experts that are unconvinced by the analysis.
- I'm convinced the low flight rate is a significant part of these problems. SpaceX is full of its own problems but it has demonstrated the power of reuse and rapid iteration.
- And then there's the backdrop of the usual human problems compounded by aggressive efforts to dismantle programs attempting to help, reverse progress on those problems, and even actively damage the environment just for spite. And even if you accept the dubious claim that some of that was to save money & stop waste (I don't), we've got the Iran war to blow those arguments to smithereens.
- Furthermore, this program is being used to puff the ego of a guy who clearly perjured himself while taking the oath of office and is actively dismantling our democracy. At least Nixon faced removal from office for his corruption.
Upvote
15
(17
/
-2)
We might be in a world controlled by the worst aspects of both regimes?
The presidents of those countries are both working together towards common personal goals now and things aren't going very well at all.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
Space is hostile to living things. With the pace of AI and robotics it is only a matter of a short time before we can send robot astronauts to the moon, mars and beyond. Not need for air, water or food. No worries about living in low gravity or radiation. And no angst when the mission goes bad and the robots cannot come back. Much cheaper than sending humans if we only wait a few more years 
In the meantime we can work on fixing climate change and nuclear proliferation.
In the meantime we can work on fixing climate change and nuclear proliferation.
Upvote
-5
(4
/
-9)
To be fair, Artemis isn't just SLS, Orion, and (now cancelled) gateway, it includes HLS and Blue Origin's landers now.
While SLS and Orion are old hat, the landers are new cutting-edge technology.
And for that reason, even as a space nerd I'm still pretty ambivalent about Artemis II, but I think I will be pretty excited about Artemis III.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Apollo astronauts spent a total of 80 hours doing EVA on the lunar surface. Maybe time for a coffee break?
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
The only way to establish permanent human presence on the lunar surface within this decade is with Starships and only Starships. NASA has nothing. The SLS payload capability is too small and for each Artemis crewed mission the cost to NASA is $4.1B. That's about 33% of the $12B annual NASA budget for human spaceflight. Which is why NASA is limited to one SLS/Orion launch per year. And China plans to start construction of its lunar base in 2030 with completion in 2035.
NASA has spent $93B (current dollars) since 2000 attempting to put astronauts on the Moon. So far, the space agency has launched three astronauts on Artemis II on a 10-day cruise around the Moon getting no closer than 5000 miles (8047 km) above the surface. That mission cost $4.1B.
Through 2025 the estimated SpaceX expenditure on Starship is $8-10B ($2025) at a $2B per year rate, all private money. This figure encompasses research and development (R&D), vehicle construction, and the substantial infrastructure required to support the megarocket (one Starfactory, two Gigabay final assembly buildings, two launch pads at Starbase Texas, one launch pad at KSC in Florida, and two launch pads at Cape Canaveral Space Force Base in Florida). A second Starfactory at the SpaceX Roberts Road facility at KSC will begin construction in late 2026.
SpaceX has two NASA contracts for customized Starship lunar landers totaling $4.5B. To date NASA has paid SpaceX about $2.6B on those contracts.
The Gigabay at Starbase Texas has 24 workstations while the two Megabays there each have 5 workstations for a total of 34. Seventeen Starships can be assembled simultaneously at the Starbase Texas production facility.
The estimated cost to produce the Booster (the first stage of Starship) is $63M and $27M for the Ship (the second stage of Starship) for a total of $90M per unit. The per unit cost of
NASA has spent $93B (current dollars) since 2000 attempting to put astronauts on the Moon. So far, the space agency has launched three astronauts on Artemis II on a 10-day cruise around the Moon getting no closer than 5000 miles (8047 km) above the surface. That mission cost $4.1B.
Through 2025 the estimated SpaceX expenditure on Starship is $8-10B ($2025) at a $2B per year rate, all private money. This figure encompasses research and development (R&D), vehicle construction, and the substantial infrastructure required to support the megarocket (one Starfactory, two Gigabay final assembly buildings, two launch pads at Starbase Texas, one launch pad at KSC in Florida, and two launch pads at Cape Canaveral Space Force Base in Florida). A second Starfactory at the SpaceX Roberts Road facility at KSC will begin construction in late 2026.
SpaceX has two NASA contracts for customized Starship lunar landers totaling $4.5B. To date NASA has paid SpaceX about $2.6B on those contracts.
The Gigabay at Starbase Texas has 24 workstations while the two Megabays there each have 5 workstations for a total of 34. Seventeen Starships can be assembled simultaneously at the Starbase Texas production facility.
The estimated cost to produce the Booster (the first stage of Starship) is $63M and $27M for the Ship (the second stage of Starship) for a total of $90M per unit. The per unit cost of
Upvote
-15
(3
/
-18)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
Oops that was supposed to be 4 days. Fixed. Thanks for the correction.Apollo astronauts spent a total of 80 hours doing EVA on the lunar surface. Maybe time for a coffee break?
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
50 years of technological progress just hear over the radio how they have two instances of Outlook running on the onboard PDC, and neither one of them is working.
Upvote
-3
(1
/
-4)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
The sadder part is he thinks Ole Musky is actually going to be build "cities on the moon" out of the goodness of his heart. You know like all those Mars colonies SpaceX built in the last 15 years. That SpaceX which will have public shareholders at a $1.75B valuation which needs $50B+ a year in profit which likely requires $200B+ in revenue to not be sitting on a stupid investment. That company is totally not going to raise prices and instead is going to dump countless billions for free to build cities on the moon. Never before in the history of companies has a company with a commanding advantage just exploited that for profit no companies with no real competition tend to keep prices low to be nice and charitable.
However like most fanboys he isn't even consistent. The US "needs" an all starship solution to compete with China who ... <checks notes> ... doesn't have an all Starship solution. Hell they don't even have the equivalent of a New Glenn or Falcon 9. Their lander and crew vehicle is 100% expendable fueled with hypergolics. The only option to compete with that is give the Nazi In Chief full control over everything.
Last edited:
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
Arguably there is nothing communist about China anymore beyond the name. It is fascism vs fascism. Who will win?
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
Everything we needed humans for. By the end we were smacking golf balls for the TV cameras because there's really nothing there. It's a big dead sand pit made of the same stuff Earth is made of, because it used to be part of Earth.
If there were serious science to be done we'd be sending robots, not humans. Humans are who you send for PR, not for scientific work.
Last edited:
Upvote
2
(7
/
-5)
The physical environments are so different that I'm not sure the Moon has much to teach us about building stuff on Mars, frankly.
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
I don't have problem with thinking this as a race? What puzzles me is the exaggeration of the outcome of the race. Some people make it sounds like "if the US loses this race to China this time, it's gonna lose forever after and never have the chance to come back!". What the heck was that idea come from?
Upvote
1
(4
/
-3)
So you do know that, right? Let's assume that China lands two astronauts on the Moon ahead of the US. Then a year later the US lands more astronauts and tons of stuffs on the Moon with Starship.
So who's the winner here? I, as a Chinese, think it's the US. Yet you seems to think that the US is the loser?
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
I still say it's difficult to cheer for my country for sending the first woman, first person of color, and first non-American around the moon when a month ago they killed a bunch of Iranian kids with a Tomahawk.
This mission costs billions of dollars and this administration took away billions in aid to people in need all over the world.
A fascist administration launching a really amazing mission is still a fucking fascist administration.
So yeah, this mission isn't going to be a cultural touchstone. It's not going to heal the nation even for a day, or the world. It's not even diverting my attention from the evil this administration is inflicting all over the world. It just reminds me of how out of touch they are.
But if some of you can take some happiness from it, then enjoy it. Don't let me bring you down.
This mission costs billions of dollars and this administration took away billions in aid to people in need all over the world.
A fascist administration launching a really amazing mission is still a fucking fascist administration.
So yeah, this mission isn't going to be a cultural touchstone. It's not going to heal the nation even for a day, or the world. It's not even diverting my attention from the evil this administration is inflicting all over the world. It just reminds me of how out of touch they are.
But if some of you can take some happiness from it, then enjoy it. Don't let me bring you down.
Upvote
8
(13
/
-5)
You know what we need? One of those cross-sections kids books but for Artemis, that'd perk everyone up a bit.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Wondering if Trump will try to claim the moon for the US, either now or if Americans land on it during his term, however long it ends up being. (Yes, I know there are laws against that, but Trump doesn't care about law. And given that President Felon got a second term, I'm pretty sure his gullible supporters don't care either. And apologies if someone already suggested it: text search seems to be broken in this browser.)
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
He has the cause and effect reversed. It's human misery built on the back of SpaceX. Without the success and mystique of SpaceX propping up the fictitious value of Tesla it's very unlikely that Musk would have managed to buy Twitter and an election and the opportunity to kill 9 million of the world's sickest and poorest.
Last edited:
Upvote
7
(9
/
-2)
Please for the love of all that is good in the Universe don't stir up the Moon Treaty fanatics.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Mask-off, or straight-talking? There are many necessary things a nation does that people don't think about, and if they did they would probably be knee-jerk opposed to - for instance nuclear deterrent and the wider military. Thoughtful governance means looking at the bigger picture and taking the advice of experts.
Pandering to the instincts of the uninformed has a name: Populism. We already have our fair share right now, but you want to add to it?
Upvote
-5
(4
/
-9)
You figure thoughtful governance is what is happening in America today? You figure moon landings are on the list of unpalatable but necessary things a sovereign nation must do? You think less than a secure majority of Americans support funding a military?
Are you by chance...from the moon?
Upvote
1
(4
/
-3)
We don't need a robotic sample return. Our human sample return already brought back almost 400kg of samples.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
To pick on one particular error, we already know that exercise is sufficient - people have stayed on the ISS for as long as a trip to Mars.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
That's true, but they needed someone to help them out of the capsule when they got back. There won't be anyone waiting with a stretcher on Mars.
I mean, he could try that, but actually defending the claim would be tough. This ain't Risk 2210, he can't exactly station a battalion there to hold it.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
The USA went to space in the middle of having a senile president, a drunken secretary of defense, morons running literally every other agency, a record deficit, and running multiple wars. Even at one of the lowest points in our history, we did that. Space isn't even a national goal, really. It's a hobby that we choose to indulge in. There is no race, except in nationalists' imaginations. When China does it, it's a national achievement. When we do it, it's a Thursday.
Now let's all pray these 4 fine people don't blow up on re-entry, because fucking Boeing.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
There's a certain irony to the fact that even the Apollo program was essentially an all-US driven program it was played up more as an achievement for all mankind whereas even though the Artemis program fundamentally doesn't work without the ESA service module, the current mission is being played up as an Ameican-first achievement.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Wow, that's some jaded comments here.
But the truth is, this is some weird ass article.
What's the point if we done it before? Seriously? What a dumb question.
I thought the point is space exploration and such stuff?
Maybe build a moon base, not because it's easy, but because it's hard.
But the truth is, this is some weird ass article.
What's the point if we done it before? Seriously? What a dumb question.
I thought the point is space exploration and such stuff?
Maybe build a moon base, not because it's easy, but because it's hard.
Upvote
-1
(5
/
-6)
(No idea how middle-of-the-night me posted this reply in the wrong comments section, but here it is where it belongs. Mea culpa.)
I appreciate the article but more so the rightful critique of it here in the comments. I'm honestly pretty ambivalent.
2am reflections here: I'm one generation removed from remembering the Apollo times. I was an Air Force brat whose first meaningful connection to the space program was staring up into the Southern California sun and waiting for the twin sonic booms of the space shuttle returning. I was a voracious astronomy nut from preteens on. I still remember staring at the news footage of Columbia breaking up - and with it, one of my parents' old friends, Rick Husband.
By rights some would say I should care about Artemis. But how, and why? Why get excited about doing essentially the same thing again now, and for so many problematic reasons? What the hell is this race nonsense and us vs. them crap, anyway? I have no vendetta against "The Chinese," and if they want to go to space, more power to them.
Honestly, I had forgotten the Artemis launch was a serious thing until a day or two before. Sure, I sent the live stream link to my family. I watched it over supper, trying not to retch over the "Murica, f*ck yeah!" bullshit. I even snapped a quick pic of our little four-month-old daughter staring at the live stream - you know, in case it turned out to be historic or something.
It went up. Without exploding. Cool.
And that was about it. A few hours later, the news headlines were back to being about the criminal-in-chief's social media ravings and the absurdities and human horrors unfolding in Iran.
So, yeah. Ambivalent is the word.
I appreciate the article but more so the rightful critique of it here in the comments. I'm honestly pretty ambivalent.
2am reflections here: I'm one generation removed from remembering the Apollo times. I was an Air Force brat whose first meaningful connection to the space program was staring up into the Southern California sun and waiting for the twin sonic booms of the space shuttle returning. I was a voracious astronomy nut from preteens on. I still remember staring at the news footage of Columbia breaking up - and with it, one of my parents' old friends, Rick Husband.
By rights some would say I should care about Artemis. But how, and why? Why get excited about doing essentially the same thing again now, and for so many problematic reasons? What the hell is this race nonsense and us vs. them crap, anyway? I have no vendetta against "The Chinese," and if they want to go to space, more power to them.
Honestly, I had forgotten the Artemis launch was a serious thing until a day or two before. Sure, I sent the live stream link to my family. I watched it over supper, trying not to retch over the "Murica, f*ck yeah!" bullshit. I even snapped a quick pic of our little four-month-old daughter staring at the live stream - you know, in case it turned out to be historic or something.
It went up. Without exploding. Cool.
And that was about it. A few hours later, the news headlines were back to being about the criminal-in-chief's social media ravings and the absurdities and human horrors unfolding in Iran.
So, yeah. Ambivalent is the word.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
Sure, maybe technically possible robotically, ice is a bit "volatile", but no such robotic mission exists or is funded. VIPER (the robotic precursor to even locating the ice) was cancelled last year after being fully built. Artemis IV is what's actually happening. Are we interested in finding a thrilling storyline or not?
The Moon has been holding the origin story of Earth's water frozen in permanent darkness for 3 billion years. Its a miracle of coincidences that it exists. We're going to go get it. How is that not absolutely thrilling popular science that is far more interesting than dick-waving geopolitics?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Apollo astronauts spent a total of 80 hours doing EVA on the lunar surface. Maybe time for a coffee break?
Still, the Apollo program was about $300B inflation adjusted, that makes $3.75B per man-hour on the lunar surface...
Last edited:
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Curiously this is the heart of the matter: America is claiming the moon.
Look as a non USian I am just not interested in the usual flag waving and jingoism.
People in my country actually LIKED America in 1968.
Today the US are involved in a war which directly negatively impacts my life. And seeing Trump or one of his cabal on the news every day is not helping.
I could excuse it all for science but let's be honest there is no science here.
Upvote
9
(11
/
-2)