AckSed Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 Non-X link: https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-japan-advance-space-cooperation-sign-agreement-for-lunar-rover/ And by "Japan" they mean Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: they make *everything*. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted September 21 Share Posted September 21 https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2024/09/20/nasa-to-fly-international-cubesats-aboard-artemis-ii-test-flight/ After being removed earlier, cubesats are back for Artemis II! Hopefully they do better than the ones on I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted September 23 Share Posted September 23 Heeere am I/Rolling in a tin can: https://europeanspaceflight.com/nasa-greenlights-next-phase-of-italian-lunar-habitat-project/ Thales Alenia given the go-ahead to make the... modest mobile moonbase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted September 29 Share Posted September 29 Huge schedule uncertainty past the next mission... which has its own uncertainty around the heat shield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exoscientist Posted October 1 Share Posted October 1 The estimated cost of the Artemis landing missions will be in the range of $8 billion per mission. This is an unsustainable cost. However, there is an approach to returning to the Moon that would only be ca. $100 million(!) per mission, comparable to the cost NASA is spending just getting to the ISS. This is to use the Starship in expendable mode. According to SpaceX it would have a payload capacity of ca. 250 tons to LEO. Moreover, it could be done literally tomorrow. Just strip off the reusability systems to get the full 250 ton to LEO capability and put an existing smaller stage such as the Falcon 9 upper stage atop it to act as a 3rd stage/lander. However, NASA and SpaceX are too wedded to their SLS and multiple Starship refueling approach. But recall the beginning of the U.S. space program in the late 50’s when our rockets kept failing, while the Soviet Union’s kept succeeding, made famous in the book and movie the Right Stuff. We weren’t able to finally succeed until we gave it over to the military to manage. In view of the strategic importance of returning to the Moon, the DoD might want to pay for this low cost, independent approach to returning to the Moon that has the distinct advantage of allowing a sustainable lunar presence and at high flight cadence. Should the DoD be involved in returning us to the Moon? https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2024/10/should-dod-be-involved-in-returning-us.html Bob Clark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 Look, a tollbooth part: Luckily (?) we've already paid the toll ($100B and counting!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 Made by Thales-Alenia, IIRC? Given their experience with orbital modules (ISS modules and ninjaturtle logistics modules) they really need to move towards a more mass production model to get costs down and production up. Then all these plans for orbital and surface spacehabs can pick up speed and cut costs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 (edited) MAXAR's SEP unit bus is ready to be attached to the Gateway PPE module, and is now in propulsion testing at NASA Glenn: https://payloadspace.com/an-electric-solar-powered-future-maxar-space-systems-ppe-to-propel-nasas-artemis-gateway/ Edited October 4 by AckSed Corrections and clarification Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 5 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said: Made by Thales-Alenia, IIRC? Given their experience with orbital modules (ISS modules and ninjaturtle logistics modules) they really need to move towards a more mass production model to get costs down and production up. Then all these plans for orbital and surface spacehabs can pick up speed and cut costs No need to leave money on the table since it's being paid for effectively by government with little competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuky Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 On 10/1/2024 at 6:48 PM, Exoscientist said: The estimated cost of the Artemis landing missions will be in the range of $8 billion per mission. This is an unsustainable cost. However, there is an approach to returning to the Moon that would only be ca. $100 million(!) per mission, comparable to the cost NASA is spending just getting to the ISS. This is to use the Starship in expendable mode. According to SpaceX it would have a payload capacity of ca. 250 tons to LEO. Moreover, it could be done literally tomorrow. Just strip off the reusability systems to get the full 250 ton to LEO capability and put an existing smaller stage such as the Falcon 9 upper stage atop it to act as a 3rd stage/lander. However, NASA and SpaceX are too wedded to their SLS and multiple Starship refueling approach. But recall the beginning of the U.S. space program in the late 50’s when our rockets kept failing, while the Soviet Union’s kept succeeding, made famous in the book and movie the Right Stuff. We weren’t able to finally succeed until we gave it over to the military to manage. In view of the strategic importance of returning to the Moon, the DoD might want to pay for this low cost, independent approach to returning to the Moon that has the distinct advantage of allowing a sustainable lunar presence and at high flight cadence. Should the DoD be involved in returning us to the Moon? https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2024/10/should-dod-be-involved-in-returning-us.html Bob Clark IMHO if tomorrow morning you come up with a way to get to the Moon and back for $1 million the SLS would still not be canceled. A ton of money has been spent on SLS, so they won't cancel it until they spend a ton more and get few launches out of it. Also, canceling SLS now would mean that a lot of contractors will have a lot less to do and good chunk of their work force would be out of job. And no administration would do that and risk loosing votes from those states in the future. Like it or not (and I am kinda on not side here) we are stuck with SLS until NASA lands few humans on the Moon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 Total marginal landing cost assuming a nominal Artemis mission as planned is not $8B, it's maybe ~$5.6B to $6B as the HLS cost includes all milestones including a test landing, so including the full $2.9B would be like including all the SLS/Orion dev costs. Note that I'm fine with that, so then the first landing will have cost closer to $110B. 7 hours ago, Cuky said: Like it or not (and I am kinda on not side here) we are stuck with SLS until NASA lands few humans on the Moon. Yeah, the sunk cost fallacy is strong with government. Most organizations/people, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted October 14 Share Posted October 14 Artemis I discovered that radiation dose in the van Allen belt (the inner, proton-rich one) can be affected by attitude i.e. which way you are pointed: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07927-7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted November 1 Share Posted November 1 Artemis II is... going. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/10/sls-update/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted November 2 Share Posted November 2 Final 9 Artemis III landing sites Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted November 4 Share Posted November 4 On 11/2/2024 at 3:01 AM, DAL59 said: Final 9 Artemis III landing sites Because heroes don't look for easy ways. Who needs that flat plateau at the right-down corner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 4 Share Posted November 4 The point is to find a spot that is in near total sunlight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted November 4 Share Posted November 4 And near total darkness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 4 Share Posted November 4 1 hour ago, DAL59 said: And near total darkness Yeah, a place for humans in near total sunlight, directly adjacent to someplace in permanent shadow (for water ice). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted November 5 Share Posted November 5 Put the PVs and solar salt heaters up on a ridge, the hab bridging the twilight zone with adaptive sun shades, and radiators in the dark and ice melting via molten salt from the ridge via exchangers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted November 5 Share Posted November 5 On 11/4/2024 at 7:29 AM, tater said: The point is to find a spot that is in near total sunlight. 7 hours ago, DAL59 said: And near total darkness As there are many kilometers to both total darkness and total sunlight from any landing site, and the moutain bikes are also not included, it looks as relevant as a helicopter trip to the 3 km altitude camp at Everest instead of getting by plane to the airport below. They will anyway see nothing from any landing site, but usually it's easier to land on a plain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 5 Share Posted November 5 7 hours ago, kerbiloid said: but usually it's easier to land on a plain. Been there, done that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted November 5 Share Posted November 5 13 minutes ago, tater said: Been there, done that. Everyone of us here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomf Posted November 5 Share Posted November 5 Of course there are no flat areas near the poles because the projection used on the terrain height map means that it's all sharp peaks and valleys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 13 Share Posted November 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted November 13 Share Posted November 13 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.