SunlitZelkova

There was at least one proposal for Mars- http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2017/08/prelude-to-mars-sample-return-mars-1984.html None I am aware of for the Moon, either crewed or uncrewed. Otherwise, no, there have not been. I kind of wonder if that is because wheels are better in some way, or if it is because people prefer to work off of the known data from the Apollo LRV, Lunokhod, and all of the Mars rovers instead of trying something completely new.

What I meant was changing the flight plan for the lunar surface stay. This should be pretty easy to do. The launch and landing dates will remain the same no matter what due to the way SLS development is, as you mention. It’s surprising that they don’t consider a four person landing crew given that the lesser landers are out.

I think (and hope) that part of the rational for once a year missions (besides the elephant in the room that is SLS development) is to give leeway for rescheduling them if the first one goes well. So if the first two week mission goes well in 2028, the next one can be reconfigured for 20-25 days, and then if that goes well in 2030 we have a month long stay on the Moon, followed by regular long duration stays with the surface habitat (whether that be another LSS or something else). Artemis III is 6.5 days, so we can already see “doubling” in Artemis V. Sending a pressurized rover in 2029 when the LTV should already be there feels quite fishy.

+1. A major problem I have is trying to make lift off “matter” instead of just going “5 4 3 2 1” and pressing W and space bar. It should be optional though, because sometimes “lonely” launches might be better. Like test flights and so on, or recreating very early space missions which were experimental and not open to the public.

The project began in 1958. Ground launches were likely proposed because docking in orbit was seen as a very big challenge at the time. Even the decision to go with LOR instead of direct ascent for Apollo was pretty controversial, and it was made in 1962 (when Orion was winding down. Smuggling of genetic material is also seen as a threat. There have apparently been attempts to get Wagyu beef production going outside of Japan, prompting special protection for the animals and farms and increased vigilance at ports and airports. ——— My idea with narco-rockets was to launch several at a time across random locations in the ocean, with most being decoys and only a couple having the goods. The capsule would be picked up by a submarine or fishing boat before heading to port on the mainland. Would this be workable? It could also be applied to the narco-drones proposed above. Also, in case anyone is interested, narco-tanks are a thing too, but they are actually just trucks with thick (50mm) armor. Just for comparison, IIRC a .50 MG will usually have ~20mm of penetrating power at a distance that I can’t recall This dramatic naming scheme is similar to the subs, most of which are technically called Low-Profile Vessels, and look like submersible fiber glass pleasure boats.

That wasn’t my point. Yes, the surface habitat is likely redundant and silly. But it would be dangerous to go straight to 90 day long stays on the Moon or longer. Even if there is equipment ready, the steps should be incremental. Apollo is a poor model for a number of reasons. Apollo had its funding peak in 1967, and was only able to launch at the rate it did due to that money- it is not an example of sustainability or economic efficiency. Apollo also was flown before we had a good understanding of the effects of long duration space flight, and it was very experimental in nature (basically every flight had some kind of malfunction). The plans you mention come from the Apollo Extension Series, which was created in 1968. It would have not been workable because coronal mass ejections were not well known until the 1970s. The crew of the Phase 3 Apollo mission may well have been fried as a CME hit the Earth-Moon system in July 1974. The ELS likewise offered little protection against such an event. There are very likely new unknowns about working on the lunar surface. Jumping straight to long duration missions is not feasible. I think Artemis has nothing to do with Mars because SpaceX will be going there on their own anyways. I can’t see any reason why a program with their pace of development would take longer than the 2030s, considering the closest thing to a serious Mars program in history (ironically the poor IPP proposal) still managed to put the landing in 1982 or 1986 given enough funding (with a start in 1970 or so). These were estimates by engineers, not NASA officials making up timelines for political purposes. If there are private companies that want to risk people’s lives with dramatically upscaled missions from what has been done before, I think that is completely fine. It is their choice. But to criticize NASA for playing it safe seems unjust. Because everybody interested in space flight and the general public are hypnotized by Mars due to the cultural push it was given by Percival Lowell, Tsiolkovsky, and von Braun in their respective countries. Mentioning Mars gives them PR bonus points and makes the program look more groundbreaking and innovative than it necessarily actually is in its present state.

It was conceived before we agreed upon above ground nuclear tests being bad.

Artemis is about going back to the Moon for lunar science. Fuel production is indeed part of it, but so far only for landers and assorted lunar support craft. All of this could, in theory, be applied to Mars, but there are no plans to do so at the moment- NASA has no idea what it’s Mars architecture will look like (departing from Moon or LEO or wherever, what vehicles, etc.) and is still in the process of making a new one. When it will be released is unknown. Again, I don’t get what people are expecting. We can’t just go straight to a massive lunar base, the first expeditions will be relatively short and temporary just as the first long duration missions in LEO were. There is more distance involved and, for all intents and purposes, we don’t really have any experience with people on the Moon- the experimental and clunky Apollo equipment is a poor example. It took around a decade of relatively short term space stations to get to Mir. Trying to get a lunar base or anything else “interesting” any faster seems unrealistic. Even SpaceX expects their “Mars city” to consist of only small scale expeditions at first.

What are you expecting? Space programs since the end of the Space Race have always been slow. The only reason we got a Moon landing roughly twice a year with Apollo was because it was riding on the cash the came from the hey day of the Space Race (~1964-1966). The Shuttle was just the Shuttle, Soyuz and it’s stations happened to be relatively cheap and easy. But Energia had a wait of two years between its launches and the ISS took over a decade to complete. Large programs take time. Especially considering the economy is still not totally back on track. Contrary to passing comments from executives and what space fans like to think, NASA and SpaceX are not competing. NASA has no reason to go fast at all for now *glances at LM-5DY and LM-9*. As long as SpaceX relies on commercial customers (none of which currently have the wherewithal for a full scale lunar exploration program), it won’t be going to the Moon either- it’s whole thing is Mars. So Artemis is still very relevant as a major crewed lunar exploration program. We can definitely expect (slightly) higher flight rates once the ISS is finished in 2030, by the way. NASA needs government money to pay its employees and they aren’t going to get a lot from just sending crews to commercial space stations every now and then. The lunar program is minor at the moment but will become their flagship project eventually. I wouldn’t be surprised if SpaceX knows that too and is deliberately ignoring the Moon not only to focus on Mars, but to give NASA something to do. The consensus is “no”. From an economical point of view, there isn’t really much reason to go to the Moon first. If you look at all of the post-Apollo NASA proposals that involved Moon and then Mars, the justification for going back to the Moon was total weak sauce when compared with the cost. Which is probably why NASA is so quiet about crewed Mars exploration, because if they lump that in with Artemis Congress starts to raise its eyebrows.

I don’t think that was taken into account. But they would launch from a remote area anyways (obviously with no populated areas down range) which would likely reduce the impact. Keep in mind though that the Orion was designed in an age when kids stood on their feet in the front seats of cars and “dilution is the solution to pollution” (read: dumping in the ocean) was considered to be a thing. So we shouldn’t have high safety expectations anyways.

With a direct recreation, I suppose part of the problem is that malfunctions aren’t a thing in the game. But basically what I desire is the general feeling of “this has never been done before” and “doing our (my) best and accomplishing something”. As opposed to screwing around with silly designs and wacky missions. So playing the game in a much more serious fashion, which will require a bit of role playing. That said though, I will still play the music from the landing scene every time I land somewhere for the first time, Apollo replica or not Note- Messing around is fine too (and I plan to do that as well, as a matter of fact), but since this thread is about recreating something I mention that specifically.

The question came from narco-submarines. Upon learning about them I was pretty impressed at their technical capabilities (despite being effectively built by amateurs, some cross the Atlantic). Now I wonder about “narco-rockets”. So basically the types of supplies available in random warehouses in cities and towns of South American countries. Although I suppose cartels could probably acquire a 3D printer if they really wanted to. But what about propellant?

The whole journey of the first crewed missions to reach where ever. First Man was really cool. This includes fictional first missions too. That feeling of being "first" is really cool, not in a nationalistic bragging kind of way, but in a "we have never done this before and now we have accomplished it after all our hard work" way.

Just how big could a rocket built by amateurs with "off the shelf" parts get? In theory, that is, not so far in real life. Also while ignoring all regulations and safety measures, which IIRC place a limit on model rockets currently.

Why not? People are still fascinated by the Saturn V and the possibilities it had in it, despite it obviously being uneconomical. Just because it may end up being a blip in aerospace history doesn't mean it should be forgotten.

The "debut" date for New Glenn and BE-4 has slipped so many times, I could Sharpie dates or years on a backyard slip 'n slide, slide down with my eyes closed and a random amount of physical force, and still correctly stop at the date when both will be operational.

I meant the PDF linked in the blog. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a956443.pdf

Being worried over a test or a first date is not in the same class as climate change or any other global issue. As I said earlier, I am not necessarily saying that "doomsayers" are correct more often than those who believe everything "will work out", but the latter aren't necessarily correct more often either. I don't think we can apply some blanket logic to all global issues. Each has its own unique situation. Are current supply chain issues going to lead to economic collapse? No, I think we can say it will all work out. But if the variety of data across a number of fields is telling us we have a pretty bad situation on our hands if we don't figure out some way to end our use of fossil fuels? Upon looking around at how little action is being made to do so, and reading reports saying the action being touted as "major" isn't enough, I think it is acceptable to say we are heading towards a bad outcome. There are plenty of instances where one can say "it will all work out" and be correct. I don't think that can be said about climate change. Saying that would be like being in a stalling, hijacked airliner and saying "it will all work out". Are there pilots aboard who know how to make a recovery and get the plane flying again? Yes. But if the terrorists won't let them in the cockpit and the ground is getting closer and closer, even if there is still a possibility that they might be allowed in at the last moment and save the plane, there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "we might be screwed". I would like to you remind that I am not saying we are destined to fail or "factually doomed", with no hope of salvation. I am simply saying there are no indications that everything "will", or is even likely to, work out fine.

Yes but people who say “everything is fine” or “everything is alright” don’t have a good track record either I’m not saying we “are” doomed, but it isn’t “all good” either.

Fun fact: As part of the MX missile program (later named Peacekeeper), a number of basing options were considered, including, but not limited to- 1. Building 4,600 hardened shelters over 14,200 square kilometers (probably around Utah) and having 4,400 decoy TELs and 200 actual TELs swapping between them via a purpose built road. This would have cost 37 billion dollars in 1979 and actually got approved by President Carter, only to be canceled by Reagan. I do wonder how the Soviets would have responded to this though... 2. Building missile siloes in hard rock (like granite). 3. Building small submarines for ICBMs, which would basically duplicate the Trident SLBM program. 4. Basing the ICBMs on ships disguised as merchants. IIRC the Soviets considered doing the same thing with the R-39 of the Pr. 941 class SSBNs (NATO reporting name: Typhoon). 3. Rail basing, in which launcher cars painted like reefer cars would carry missiles. They would remain on base and deploy to the main rail network in times of crisis. This was the mode that actually got approved and was only canceled when the Cold War ended. 4. Building 900 meter deep launch shafts in a mountain and a cavernous base connecting them below. TELs are based there, and then drive up to a shaft to launch their missiles. Either 10 separate bases with 20 missiles each would be built, or a single base with 100 shafts and all 200 missiles. 6. Putting two missiles on a derivative of a wide body airliner. The planes takeoff when an attack is detected and then launch their missiles in flight. 5. A seaplane carrying four missiles. It would sit at a random location in the ocean when on alert/patrol and take off to launch its missiles. It would have had a take off weight of 907 tons and a 114 meter wingspan. 6. Uncrewed, 117 ton hovercraft with a single missile on it. 600 of these would patrol over 233,000 square kilometers. 7. Building 4,600 pools and swapping 200 real canisters with missiles and 4,400 decoy canisters around between them. Each pool would be roughly 90 meters long, 30 meters wide, and 12 meters deep, and hold roughly 29,500,000 liters of water (ten Olympic swimming pools). Each pool would be spaced one mile apart, and roughly 8,000 kilometers of new roads would be required. The canisters could erect themselves and fire without crew assistance. 8. 200 uncrewed canisters released into the ocean. They would drift, and then on command would right themselves and fire their missiles. 9. 200 uncrewed canisters tethered to the ocean floor. They would pop up to the surface and then launch their missiles on command. Source is this blog, which is sourced from the original basing study document, the link to which no longer works- https://baloogancampaign.com/2017/01/09/icbm-basing-modes-can-hide-icbms-today/ I did find this, however the full original study does not appear to be anywhere anymore- https://ota.fas.org/reports/8116.pdf

Artemis I will be carrying two mannequins to enable a look at the radiation the crew will receive during the flight. What happens if it is really bad? Will everybody who flies on SLS Blk 1 just be "done" after that final mission? Would it be possible to do this modularly? Otherwise, New Armstrong will be needed sooner than anticipated. Of course no one else would really be able to do anything either if it can't be done modularly because there are no other launch vehicles large enough.

Except, you know, if your entire country might be inundated... The response to climate change would look very different if it was the entire mainland United States that was at threat of being submerged instead of some "far off" and "tiny" island nations. But the latter is a bit like saying "all the world leaders need to do is sit down, discuss their concerns, and come to a joint solution". Sounds easy on paper, pretty unlikely in reality. See below about technology. This all sounds nice, but reminds me of how the USSR "had" vast natural and decent labor resources at their hands to solve the meandering economic problems of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Yet just because the physically required materials were there doesn't mean they ended up being used. Lack of effort to change and interest in preserving the status quo led to stagnation, and before anyone knew it the country literally and figuratively fell apart, because no one could get together to try and solve anything, in combination with many wanting to deliberately either let it wither away or actively tear it down for their own benefit (in some cases positive, in some cases malevolent). So "we have the technology" or "the technology is there" is not a good indicator of how a problem will turn out.

It was actually a sort of half-joke. If I was a human or intelligent Earth inhabitant 50 billion years from now, I wouldn't care that much about the Moon's or Earth's rotational period. But on the other hand if we bring Late Holocene homo sapiens behavioral matters into the question (like "over work" and "disliking work") then a philosophical response is what immediately comes to mind, rather than engineering. I decided to dress it up in a manner similar to some parenting debates though. After all, the Moon is only in a bad position if we think the Moon is in a bad position.

How to save the Moon? Change your perception of what constitutes salvation. Let the Moon be the Moon. It deserves to go out (further) in to the universe and try new things. Same goes for members of the genus homo, if it can survive for that long.

https://daisetsuzan.blogspot.com/2019/06/gone-in-35-seconds-spatial.html This is my guess as to what happened.