Have you always be fascinated by space and its exploration?
-
There is a huge difference between companies making money on a program and a program that is essentially made to funnel money into billionaire's pockets and certain congressional districts, whilst NASA's real science programs get defunded left and right.
I make a prophecy now: In our lifetime, there will be no permanent settlement on the moon and no human will set their foot on Mars, unless there is some game changing technology breakthrough which will *not* come from this program.
@mina For your prophecy I linked to these 3 books ...
-
@NatureMC @mina @sundogplanets @mountdiscovery
There's a lot we don't know about the moon and it's a good place for further observation and research of the universe, so going back makes some sense.
But Mars is still far far away...
-
Have you always be fascinated by space and its exploration?
Do you find stories about the Apollo program deeply inspiring?
Then you and me are on the same page.
So: Do also you find the knowledge that in the next few months there will be a crewed moon flyby just not interesting or inspiring at all?
I sincerely don't see what this is for, aside from filling the contractors' companies' pockets at the expense of actual research.
Is it my age or is this just pointless?
@mina
It should be unmanned. Between a core launcher that leaks and a heat shield that can't actually take the heat, this is a PR disaster waiting to happen. -
@NatureMC @echopapa @mina @mountdiscovery
I personally don't see the point at all. Sending probes and rovers, yes. People? Nah, the same political space-race as in the 1960s. And Mars is as dead as the Moon, only further away. There is literally zero reason to be there, except for having done it once. That's it. No cities, no civilization, Mars is 100x more challenging to sustain than Earth, and we're not good at the latter.
-
Have you always be fascinated by space and its exploration?
Do you find stories about the Apollo program deeply inspiring?
Then you and me are on the same page.
So: Do also you find the knowledge that in the next few months there will be a crewed moon flyby just not interesting or inspiring at all?
I sincerely don't see what this is for, aside from filling the contractors' companies' pockets at the expense of actual research.
Is it my age or is this just pointless?
@mina
The fundamental difference between Apollo and Artemis is: Apollo was literally impossible before it was done in 1969.
The rest of Apollo was replicating results, proving it was not just one lucky shot.Artemis does what Apollo did, just with today's technology. Great. We know the computing power is available, we have powerful enough rockets.
IMHO Artemis just proves we can still write software good enough to land on the moon.
Which is honestly something I'd doubt, with AI slop around… -
@mina the flyby is a test flight for the rocket systems. Btw they did the same thing with the Apollo rocket.
The rocket is a NASA one which is owned by the US government.
Actually, Apollo 8 did not a flyby, but entered into moon orbit which it left after 10 rounds.
-
@mina @NatureMC @sundogplanets @mountdiscovery
The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress...
look at the number of failed moon missions
-
@mina May I give you the facts about the NASA budgets: https://ourplnt.com/budget-of-nasa-year-by-year/ (1958-2024). And please don't forget the budgets of ESA and CSA.
Economically, the earnings are mostly indirectly: with the first moon landing it was the "birth" of the modern computer industry and the hegemony of the US in these areas. We feel the consequences today in our dependence!
ESA + CSA are connected to this program also for more independance, even if this might sound contradictory.That's a great statistic!
-
@mina For your prophecy I linked to these 3 books ...
We shall see.
Also, I'm going to look which of the three, I'm going to order first.
After all, I still have a sweet spot for all things spacey.
-
@mina
It should be unmanned. Between a core launcher that leaks and a heat shield that can't actually take the heat, this is a PR disaster waiting to happen. -
@mina
The fundamental difference between Apollo and Artemis is: Apollo was literally impossible before it was done in 1969.
The rest of Apollo was replicating results, proving it was not just one lucky shot.Artemis does what Apollo did, just with today's technology. Great. We know the computing power is available, we have powerful enough rockets.
IMHO Artemis just proves we can still write software good enough to land on the moon.
Which is honestly something I'd doubt, with AI slop around…I reckon, the main challenge today is the organization.
Back in the day, NASA did a great job, bringing all the talent and the industrial resources together to build something amazing.
With today's tech, it should be a piece of cake, but it still isn't.
-
I reckon, the main challenge today is the organization.
Back in the day, NASA did a great job, bringing all the talent and the industrial resources together to build something amazing.
With today's tech, it should be a piece of cake, but it still isn't.
-
-
-
@mina
It should be unmanned. Between a core launcher that leaks and a heat shield that can't actually take the heat, this is a PR disaster waiting to happen. -
I reckon, the main challenge today is the organization.
Back in the day, NASA did a great job, bringing all the talent and the industrial resources together to build something amazing.
With today's tech, it should be a piece of cake, but it still isn't.
@mina
The tech is likely not the problem.
Reliability is a different matter.There's no truck stop in space. And a blank navigation system is not an option.
Current chips are surprisingly susceptible to (cosmic) radiation, an issue simply non-existent in the 1960 due to structure size.
Yes, we do have the tech.
Making it work at 100% reliability in space is a different matter. Especially with CEOs whose primary target is to get rich, not to the moon.Today's rocket science: Making CEOs work.
-
