Nightside Posted December 16, 2020 Author Share Posted December 16, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, tater said: Artemis II to have a Canadian astronaut. Did JB lose a lot of weight since we last saw him? And blonde highlights? He looks like he's getting ready for a vacation. Edited December 16, 2020 by Nightside Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 He lost mass, the weight stays proportional. Though, if gets to the Moon, a whole 5/6 of his weight will get away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted December 18, 2020 Share Posted December 18, 2020 And on the humorous side ... Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted December 18, 2020 Share Posted December 18, 2020 They aren't going to replace the failed PDU on Orion because it's too hard to access and the risk of collateral damage exceeds the risk of flying without one of the capsule's redundancies. https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2020/12/17/artemis-i-orion-progress-update/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted December 18, 2020 Share Posted December 18, 2020 On 12/17/2020 at 1:30 AM, tater said: "Canada to become second nation ever to send people to the Moon" This headline implies Canada has something to do with the sending to me. They always lend a hand, that's why. 17 minutes ago, RCgothic said: They aren't going to replace the failed PDU on Orion because it's too hard to access and the risk of collateral damage exceeds the risk of flying without one of the capsule's redundancies. As long as the clock doesn't go astray and think it hasn't launched... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted December 18, 2020 Share Posted December 18, 2020 10 hours ago, YNM said: They always lend a hand, that's why. As long as the clock doesn't go astray and think it hasn't launched... Except in space. Then you get the whole arm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted December 19, 2020 Share Posted December 19, 2020 (edited) 21 hours ago, RCgothic said: They aren't going to replace the failed PDU on Orion because it's too hard to access and the risk of collateral damage exceeds the risk of flying without one of the capsule's redundancies. (Silently recalls that patched 2 mm hole in Soyuz...) *** A relevant technical question. Spoiler Can the Canadarm hold a hockey stick? Edited December 19, 2020 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 (edited) Ok, wow. Maybe NT aren't the front runners after all! On that budget I think SpaceX is the only realistic prospect. Edited December 21, 2020 by RCgothic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 Sounds like you're asking about the real mission? And so, thread moved to the Spaceflight sub. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 (edited) 27 minutes ago, RCgothic said: Ok, wow. Maybe NT aren't the front runners after all! On that budget I think SpaceX is the only realistic prospect. The plan is to have a downselect, which likely gets pushed out from the original plan. Every day a selection is pushed out helps SpaceX, since every day SpaceX makes progress towards having the capability anyway. Also, given likely budgets, who can make a lander with the least (or indeed NO) government cash inputs? Dynetics? Cool lander, but they will do exactly nothing that is not paid for (they don't have the cash). NT? Bezos has the money, but LockMart? If NASA asked for a different interior paint color from the render they were presented with LockMart would not change it without a change order, and cash paid to them, lol. Ditto Grumman. So minus funding, NT only progresses to the extent Bezos writes a check to LockMart/Grumman. Honestly, they'd be more like to make those elements themselves (which given their dev pace should be around by 2124), That leaves SpaceX. They are making Starship regardless of what NASA does or doesn't pay for, without question. Edited December 21, 2020 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 (edited) I've asked on Twitter but I'm not fully clear - are the bid amounts total for the next phase of development? I.e. divided over years it at least *somewhat* matches the proposed funding. Or is it an annual dev cost and the proposed funding is therefore a joke? Edited December 21, 2020 by RCgothic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 21, 2020 Share Posted December 21, 2020 12 minutes ago, Vanamonde said: Sounds like you're asking about the real mission? And so, thread moved to the Spaceflight sub. And there's a whole thread discussing Artemis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavio hc16 Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 9 hours ago, RCgothic said: I've asked on Twitter but I'm not fully clear - are the bid amounts total for the next phase of development? I.e. divided over years it at least *somewhat* matches the proposed funding. Or is it an annual dev cost and the proposed funding is therefore a joke? it's for the year 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 I think we can all say that Jim's been a great NASA admin, regardless of political orientation. I don't know if it's just because it's fresh in my memory because it's more recent, but under him it felt like things really started to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 JB was an excellent administrator, sad to see him go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 (edited) Roscosmos has-decided-to-exit / is-expelled-from the Gateway project. So, the future of the project now highly doubtful... (Well, I give up with posting the link to my post there, so just copy.) Spoiler https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https://ria.ru/20210125/otstranenie-1594410088.html Rumors say that Roscosmos is excluded by NASA from the lunar program, stopped receiving the mailing and so on, and lost the access to docs. *** Upd. The rumors prove true. https://www.interfax.ru/russia/746682 https://www.interfax.ru/russia/746690 Rogozin stated that Russia is not interested in the American lunar program participation. "How could we be expelled from a group, the members of which we had never been? Yes, NASA sent to us a couple of times some documents, ran a briefing (not a discussion, but a briefing). But we had already stated not once that we a ready to participate in a project where all members are equal." The Roscosmos PR stated that Russia decided to exit the Gateway lunar project, but still is ready to continue a dialog with colleagues from US. Edited January 25, 2021 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 Downselect has been delayed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 Any delay helps the companies that are actively building moon landers regardless of government contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 (edited) A strange fact on an Artemis-related topic. Either wiki and astronautix don't like me anymore, or all links at the Project Horizon pdfs (V1, V2) and all astronautix pages about its parts indeed become broken. Artemis is new Horizon? They decided to revive it instead of designing from scratch? Will it include an infantry squad geological team with shooting wands, like the Horizon? https://www.history.army.mil/faq/horizon/Horizon_V1.pdf https://www.history.army.mil/faq/horizon/Horizon_V2.pdf Upd. Astronautix still partially contains. Only several pages are removed. Edited February 4, 2021 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 Seriously, they're peddling stuff that NASA hasn't even made much of a solid plan of yet XD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/acting-nasa-chief-says-2024-moon-landing-no-longer-a-realistic-target/ Quote "The 2024 lunar landing goal may no longer be a realistic target due to the last two years of appropriations, which did not provide enough funding to make 2024 achievable," the acting administrator, Steve Jurczyk, told Ars. "In light of this, we are reviewing the program for the most efficient path forward.” 2024 was always aspirational, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 56 minutes ago, tater said: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/acting-nasa-chief-says-2024-moon-landing-no-longer-a-realistic-target/ 2024 was always aspirational, IMO. If Shelby retires in 2024, any further development of the SLS is likely to be on hold. Considering that Artemis is an essentially a project invented to give the SLS a mission, missing 2024 really puts the whole thing in doubt. If they like it enough they can probably rebuild around Falcon Heavy or Vulcan (Vulcan will presumably be cheaper than SLS thanks to less Senate funding). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 13 minutes ago, wumpus said: If Shelby retires in 2024, any further development of the SLS is likely to be on hold. Considering that Artemis is an essentially a project invented to give the SLS a mission, missing 2024 really puts the whole thing in doubt. If they like it enough they can probably rebuild around Falcon Heavy or Vulcan (Vulcan will presumably be cheaper than SLS thanks to less Senate funding). SLS is pretty pointless outside of it's primary role (funneling money into various districts is the primary function of SLS). Vulcan lacks the capability I think to do much. I'm not sure it can get Orion to LEO with all 6 SRMs (mass to LEO is right on the edge of Orion CSM mass, and the LES is another 10 tons on top of that—then there are different trajectory requirements for aborts, don't think it can do it). New Glenn, OTOH, could easily get Orion to LEO. Then you need some distributed launch to build a cislunar stack in LEO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.