Comment by JumpCrisscross
4 days ago
> is no technological innovation in the Artemis stack
Scaling is still engineering.
And the environmental control system, laser-optical communication systems and block-construction heat shields are new. For Artemis III, in-obit propellant transfer will be new and transformational.
The block construction heat shield was new on Artemis I. Now we just know that it is an unfixed problem that will be done differently on future missions.
And Artemis III has nothing to do with in-orbit propellant transfer, that will be SpaceX and Blue Origin testing independently of Artemis III.
> block construction heat shield was new on Artemis I. Now we just know that it is an unfixed problem
Unfixed problems on a new technology mean it’s still new.
> Artemis III has nothing to do with in-orbit propellant transfer
I may have fucked this up—isn’t the depot supposed to be up for III? Or is that punted to IV?
It isn't moving forward. It's an ill-conceived Apollo 1.5 with the MIC calling all the shots and a lander that is MIA. China is doing Apollo 2.0 which is fine considering this is their first attempt. The US needs a modular launch system with orbital booster tugs that can be mixed in various combinations for different mission profiles. One big booster with all of the risk stacked onto billion dollar launches is not the future we should be working toward.
> US needs a modular launch system with orbital booster tugs that can be mixed in various combinations for different mission profiles
This is what the propellant depot is building towards.
> in-obit propellant transfer
I'm hoping they can do it in-orbit. We've had enough NASA obits
Hehe. Obits to be avoided in obisular orbits.
All of this stuff is really great but it's not worth the cost that was spent on it.
The thing you have to keep asking yourself is "what could 100 billion dollars of non-pork barrel spending have bought instead of what we ended up with?"
A month of war in the middle east.
> All of this stuff is really great but it's not worth the cost that was spent on it
It’s building towards a system. If we get Starship and in-orbit propellant depots and a lunar nuclear reactor and then kill the programme, it will probably be judged by history as a success.
> what could 100 billion dollars of non-pork barrel spending have bought instead of what we ended up with?
Rien. This is the system we have, and it’s unclear such a program could have survived sans pork.
It may be building towards a system. Or it could all be cancelled in 3-4 weeks after these four explorers burn up on reentry.
And then all these hopes and dreams that you have will be gone, like that $100 billion dollars just up in smoke.
I can tell that you're as passionate about space exploration and colonization as I am, but this isn't the way my friend.
This program is coming at the cost of the Aldrin Cyclers and Von Braun Wheels that you and I know could and should have existed decades ago and while you may think that those things will come from this program I think you should consider the fact that root cause of this program's dysfunction is what is denying us this reality of humanity spreading across the stars.
1 reply →
What a simultaneously cynical and boring and completely useless attitude. Is it your position that if this hadn't happened 100b of otherwise more important spending would have happened?
I think that $100 billion, spent effectively could have resulted in Von Braun Wheels in LEO. I think that it could have resulted in teleoperated lunar mining and smelting that would be allowing us to build human bases on Earth now instead of a single fly by that may end in the death of these four amazing explorers.
2 replies →