* Cancel the Lunar Gateway
* Cancel the Block 1B upgrade of the SLS rocket
* Designate Centaur V as the new upper stage for the SLS rocket
megastraint on
3 easy steps also means the only reason politicians gave NASA money for in the first place. I learned a long time ago that NASA is just a jobs program… the mission isnt the most important part.
Harturb on
If the point of a moon mission is “just” to put Americans on the moon again, then sure, this makes sense.
But I question whether this approach would really accomplish much. The article is basically “cancel gateway and all the things needed for it” but actual deep space development and staging areas for lunar exploration are really one of the main long term draws of Artemis. To me it feels like the the article has missed the forest for the trees.
YsoL8 on
>The space agency’s plans after Artemis III are even more complex. The Artemis IV mission will nominally involve the debut of a larger version of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, a new launch tower, and a stopover at a new space station near the Moon, the Lunar Gateway.
If a realistic date for Artimis 3 is no earlier than 2028 (and I agree) then Artimis 4 is likely no earlier than 2033/4. I have a bridge to sell you if you think moving blocks is going to be any more straightforward than validating block 1. My guess is any base that does come out of this won’t appear until about 2040.
As for China, it doesn’t really matter, a single base doesn’t somehow make anyone emperors of the Moon. Doing this kind of thing at all will remain a project of national pride and cost for decades even with these new reusable rockets coming in.
slothboy on
If anyone hasn’t seen it yet, Destin from Smarter Every Day gave a presentation to NASA about an outsider’s perspective to the issues with Artemis. It’s very well done and worth a look if you need further context for above article.
SLS is a joke in general at this point. If companies really want deep-space optimized systems, put a cheap, mass produced ICPS on a Starship booster. It would need to be a completely different upper stage in order to accommodate the difference in velocity between Artemis core stage and Superheavy at separation, but no one should be looking at trying to make the bottom half of Artemis work. It is a hole that money goes into and that is it.
Decronym on
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|——-|———|—|
|[ICPS](/r/Space/comments/1fttu9f/stub/lpv5r9g “Last usage”)|Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage|
|[LLO](/r/Space/comments/1fttu9f/stub/lpuxftq “Last usage”)|Low Lunar Orbit (below 100km)|
|[LOS](/r/Space/comments/1fttu9f/stub/lpuxftq “Last usage”)|Loss of Signal
| |Line of Sight|
|[NRHO](/r/Space/comments/1fttu9f/stub/lpv61bc “Last usage”)|Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1fttu9f/stub/lpuyyp1 “Last usage”)|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|Jargon|Definition|
|——-|———|—|
|[cislunar](/r/Space/comments/1fttu9f/stub/lpulh4n “Last usage”)|Between the Earth and Moon; within the Moon’s orbit|
|[cryogenic](/r/Space/comments/1fttu9f/stub/lpv5r9g “Last usage”)|Very low temperature fluid; materials that would be gaseous at room temperature/pressure|
| |(In re: rocket fuel) Often synonymous with hydrolox|
|hydrolox|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
I did do a second take at Berger’s implication that the US isn’t planning on building out a lunar base too, because it is, in Artemis VII+. But his bigger point does make sense in that Block 1B is going to kill the program if nothing changes, and you need Block 1B to build Gateway. But you can’t kill Gateway because that’s an international project.
I wonder how many of Gateway’s components can be repurposed to become an ISS replacement. I know it’s not what anyone wants, but Gateway is getting built either way. If the US needs to cancel Block 1B, might as well make the most of the situation.
ergzay on
Unfortunate to see this getting so many downvotes (looking at the upvote percentage) when it’s so prescient. This is an extremely valuable piece that many people need to read. Gateway doesn’t serve any real purposes what so ever that don’t already overlap with everything else planned.
9 Comments
Eric Berger’s 3 Easy steps to save Artemis:
* Cancel the Lunar Gateway
* Cancel the Block 1B upgrade of the SLS rocket
* Designate Centaur V as the new upper stage for the SLS rocket
3 easy steps also means the only reason politicians gave NASA money for in the first place. I learned a long time ago that NASA is just a jobs program… the mission isnt the most important part.
If the point of a moon mission is “just” to put Americans on the moon again, then sure, this makes sense.
But I question whether this approach would really accomplish much. The article is basically “cancel gateway and all the things needed for it” but actual deep space development and staging areas for lunar exploration are really one of the main long term draws of Artemis. To me it feels like the the article has missed the forest for the trees.
>The space agency’s plans after Artemis III are even more complex. The Artemis IV mission will nominally involve the debut of a larger version of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, a new launch tower, and a stopover at a new space station near the Moon, the Lunar Gateway.
If a realistic date for Artimis 3 is no earlier than 2028 (and I agree) then Artimis 4 is likely no earlier than 2033/4. I have a bridge to sell you if you think moving blocks is going to be any more straightforward than validating block 1. My guess is any base that does come out of this won’t appear until about 2040.
As for China, it doesn’t really matter, a single base doesn’t somehow make anyone emperors of the Moon. Doing this kind of thing at all will remain a project of national pride and cost for decades even with these new reusable rockets coming in.
If anyone hasn’t seen it yet, Destin from Smarter Every Day gave a presentation to NASA about an outsider’s perspective to the issues with Artemis. It’s very well done and worth a look if you need further context for above article.
[https://youtu.be/OoJsPvmFixU?si=2QkuLZT4XpjYpgPr](https://youtu.be/OoJsPvmFixU?si=2QkuLZT4XpjYpgPr)
SLS is a joke in general at this point. If companies really want deep-space optimized systems, put a cheap, mass produced ICPS on a Starship booster. It would need to be a completely different upper stage in order to accommodate the difference in velocity between Artemis core stage and Superheavy at separation, but no one should be looking at trying to make the bottom half of Artemis work. It is a hole that money goes into and that is it.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|——-|———|—|
|[ICPS](/r/Space/comments/1fttu9f/stub/lpv5r9g “Last usage”)|Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage|
|[LLO](/r/Space/comments/1fttu9f/stub/lpuxftq “Last usage”)|Low Lunar Orbit (below 100km)|
|[LOS](/r/Space/comments/1fttu9f/stub/lpuxftq “Last usage”)|Loss of Signal
| |Line of Sight|
|[NRHO](/r/Space/comments/1fttu9f/stub/lpv61bc “Last usage”)|Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1fttu9f/stub/lpuyyp1 “Last usage”)|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|Jargon|Definition|
|——-|———|—|
|[cislunar](/r/Space/comments/1fttu9f/stub/lpulh4n “Last usage”)|Between the Earth and Moon; within the Moon’s orbit|
|[cryogenic](/r/Space/comments/1fttu9f/stub/lpv5r9g “Last usage”)|Very low temperature fluid; materials that would be gaseous at room temperature/pressure|
| |(In re: rocket fuel) Often synonymous with hydrolox|
|hydrolox|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
—————-
^([Thread #10644 for this sub, first seen 1st Oct 2024, 20:13])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
I did do a second take at Berger’s implication that the US isn’t planning on building out a lunar base too, because it is, in Artemis VII+. But his bigger point does make sense in that Block 1B is going to kill the program if nothing changes, and you need Block 1B to build Gateway. But you can’t kill Gateway because that’s an international project.
I wonder how many of Gateway’s components can be repurposed to become an ISS replacement. I know it’s not what anyone wants, but Gateway is getting built either way. If the US needs to cancel Block 1B, might as well make the most of the situation.
Unfortunate to see this getting so many downvotes (looking at the upvote percentage) when it’s so prescient. This is an extremely valuable piece that many people need to read. Gateway doesn’t serve any real purposes what so ever that don’t already overlap with everything else planned.