Falcon Heavy and Artemis aren’t really comparable. Even in full disposable mode FH delivers around half the payload to lunar orbit that Artemis does. In reusable mode it’s less than a 1/3. Falcon Heavy’s launch costs are heavily subsidised by the NRO. Without them, cost would be closer to $300m per launch. Yes, that still makes Artemis expensive, but you’re not just paying for the rocket.
With all the advancement that Space-X has made I can't believe that NASA basically came up with a Saturn V with some left over shuttle boosters strapped to it.....
Not a massive advancement for 50 years....
It's always going to be basically the same thing though isn't it? Sure SpaceX landing the stages is amazing, but rockets are the only game in town and they are what they are, basically the same as they were in WW2 and even further back.
With all the advancement that Space-X has made I can't believe that NASA basically came up with a Saturn V with some left over shuttle boosters strapped to it.....
If SpaceX were building a rocket to take a human cargo to the moon and back (alive) what would it look like, when would it be ready and how much would it cost?
[quote data-userid="56836" data-postid="13718154"
If SpaceX were building a rocket to take a human cargo to the moon and back (alive) what would it look like, when would it be ready and how much would it cost?
They are, Starship HLS is the lander part of the Artemis project. As to when would it be ready, it is scheduled to have its first test flight in, uh, 2025.
They are, Starship HLS is the lander part of the Artemis project
The lander part. Looks like it would topple over if landing on less than a totally flat surface.
I was explaining this to my daughter earlier (genuinely, captive audience as I drove her to start a 6am shift, she wasn't that interested but got told anyway) - in simple terms an arts graduate would understand. But it made me really think about the enormity of it again.
It's insane really isn't it?
They set off at an angle and velocity so as the oomph runs out, it's sufficient to get them far enough away and travelling fast enough that earth's gravity catches them just the right amount so they go round rather than descending in a graceful parabola back to a noisy and violent landing.
Then gravity holds them while they circuit the earth, until at just the right moment and for just the right amount of time they get a bit more oomph to break the hold and set off aiming for near the moon.
How near? Near enough that its own gravity catches them as they pass and make them circuit the moon just enough. Too close and they'll be dragged in and eventually down, too far and it won't catch them enough and they'll fly by. Sure, they can make corrections to this plan but it's not as if they're in a totally controlled flight, they need to be close enough.
Oh, and in case unclear, the moon's not still either, that's going around us at the same time, so you need to work all that out too.
And then the same in reverse, as the moon slingshots them back to just about the right place and time to enable them to get caught by earth again and land in the Pacific. Aiming for a few square miles of sea from a quarter of a million miles away. If my comparison's right that's like hitting a bullseye in darts. From an oche 350 yards away.
We've got huge computers to work all that out now. But when they first did it, it relied on a lady with a piece of paper and a pencil, and a desktop calculating machine. And some people with balls the size of planets to say that they believed it and they'd give it a go (IIRC they even refused to believe early computer models and wouldn't go unless she'd checked the calcs herself)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Johnson
Insane in every dimension, raised to the power of brilliant.
Yep, it's all a bit bonkers although there's probably an app for it now!
The Hidden Figures film about her is fantastic.
Whilst I can admire the science and engineering that goes into making this happen I’m still struggling to understand what the point of it is.
Whilst I can admire the science and engineering that goes into making this happen I’m still struggling to understand what the point of it is.
Doing difficult things brings developments in other areas - you could try looking up what the Apollo programme has brought to every day life. Artemis is a stepping stone to a permanent presence on the moon, and establishing that will necessitate all sorts of developments which could find a use elsewhere. Then there's the possibility for remote scientific experiments, astronomy, low gravity production of some high spec products etc etc etc
"But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the Moon. We choose to go to the Moon... We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; "
And because it inspires. As you said, maybe some kids somewhere will be watching and inspired by the awesome sci-eng and maybe not be rocket scientists, but go on to something else 'valuable'
My YouTube has presented me with a lot of Brian Cox videos recently. He makes the points above about bringing other advancements and inspiration, but also a wider point that on earth we're always working with and competing for limited resources, but in space it's unlimited. Ultimately, out there is everything we could possibly need, we just need to keep advancing to the point at which we can go and utilise it.
What if we use everything we've got and never get there?
Get where?
Do, or do not do. There is no try.
Whilst I can admire the science and engineering that goes into making this happen I’m still struggling to understand what the point of it is.
That does show a startling lack of understanding and imagination. After roughly a half a century of technological advancement in engineering and technology, much due to the requirements of sending devices into orbit, which has led to you having the ability to post on here, quite possibly from a small, mobile computer of quite remarkable complexity, you still don’t understand the point? 🤷🏼♂️
With all the advancement that Space-X has made I can't believe that NASA basically came up with a Saturn V with some left over shuttle boosters strapped to it.....
Not a massive advancement for 50 years…
Why reinvent something that’s already proven to just work? NASA sent a lot of things into space using what is effectively ‘light blue touch paper and stand well back’. Same with the Russian rockets and boosters, all of which come directly from the V2 rockets that Werner Von Braun designed.
The main difference that Space-X has developed is being able to re-use the main stage and boosters, but as others have mentioned, they can’t come close to the Artemis rocket and boosters for sheer power and lift capacity.
If it ain’t broke, why fix it?
So as well as being the furthest from earth, for 40 mins last night they were the loneliest as they travelled behind the moon and lost comms with earth.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cp38vg5knveo
If you haven't heard PSB and their Race for Space album, The Other Side (track 6, using sound from Apollo 8) just makes me emotional (I know, weird). The first orbit of the moon, the first time contact was lost, and then when the static comes back in, and the thrum of the music increases and then the drumming - I saw them do the album live at the RAH in 2019 as part of the Proms, 50 years on from the first moon walk and just wept like a baby.
The fact that theres a canadian, a black guy and a woman on this mission (and they all seem to be really nice genuine people)
Has hugely upset some of the crazier elements of the far right, and by far right I mean once respected journalist who regularly appeared on Newsnight, Question Time etc often to champion Brexit
https://bsky.app/profile/ottoenglish.bsky.social/post/3mivcaea23k2n
once respected journalist
That is some weapons grade bellendery. "Hate themselves forever after"? No mate, that's what YOU would do after posting that embarrassment if you had an ounce of self respect.
The comments about why are we only repeating what we did 50 years ago. I always feel that what we're doing now is safer and creating the start of a process that goes beyond lighting the fuse, running away and hoping for the best.
As for the conspiracy about not going, if NASA and the global elite are anything like any other workplace, gossip is rife and the 'truth' would have escaped.
Listening to 13 minutes and tim peak explaining all the issues is fascinating. The techniques for CPR in micro gravity, getting used to your orientation, putting things down and them floating away (or dropping like a stone at home), the Russian who while on the phone would bounce around the Russian habitat and exert peak loads on the station. All the little things away from the fact they are screaming round the world at 18000 mph.
It's f***ing bonkers.
I'm not religious in the slightest, but godspeed seems like the best sentiment for every single one of the astronauts cosmonauts and taikonauts etc
The comments about why are we only repeating what we did 50 years ago.
We aren't, really.
One of the conspiracy theory lines is that we've "lost the technology" to go to the moon. There is a degree of truth to this, albeit it's obviously been contorted by morons. Apollo era tech could be flaky. I've been fortunate enough to see some of it first hand and my takeaway was astonishment that no-one took one look at it all and went "you've got to be shitting me, there's no way I'm getting into that!" The Saturn series rockets were glorified ICBMs; the Saturn V main engines had to be calibrated individually, by hand, by skilled engineers. One wrong hammer blow and you're flying diagonally. We've "lost the technology" because people aren't immortal and there hasn't been a call for moon rocket engines in my lifetime. It's a bit like arguing we can't build dry stone walls anymore when we're surrounded by rocks.
WWII bombs gave us Mercury which gave us Gemini which gave us Apollo which gave us STS (the Shuttle) which gave us Artemis. We're standing on the shoulders of giants for sure, but those comments you refer to arguing that it's exactly the same as in the 1960s is their catastrophic comprehension failure. Like, a Focus ST and a Model T Ford are both "just cars," amirite?
There's some very odd attitudes on this thread. Putting people on the moon was astonishing in 1969, it's still going to be astonishing if/when we do it again.
It's a bit like arguing we can't build dry stone walls anymore when we're surrounded by rocks.
Excellent summary.
Putting people on the moon was astonishing in 1969, it's still going to be astonishing if/when we do it again.
Yep, I watched the first one and I'm hoping I'll be around to witness the next.
Sorry, I should have made it more clear, I was referencing what I've read when trawling through the Facebook comments section.
Coming to a planet near you. 40000 miles to go in the next 4 hours or so.
Back on earth again, i'm pleased to see in all the sophistication the capsule righting system was basically designed by Carl Fredriksen.
I watched some of the re entry but then fell asleep for the final 20 minutes! Good to read it was successful.
I skipped through / watched it this morning with the kids over breakfast. Well I watched and they talked over it.
Glad to see that it's all worked well and the crew are all safe. Onwards to iv and feet on the moon! I'm not sure what the plan is for iii with all the recent changes I've lost track. Anyone know?
I thought Artemis 3 was all about docking in low earth orbit.
Putting people on the moon was astonishing in 1969, it's still going to be astonishing if/when we do it again.
It was astonishing in 1969, so astonishing that it is questionable, whereas in 2026 it is very meh.
So "meh" that you felt compelled to come into this thread and tell us how meh you think it is?
I thought Artemis 3 was all about docking in low earth orbit.
That's it.
whereas in 2026 it is very meh.
In my humble but slightly qualified option, bollocks.
It will be astounding in 2028 when they're due to go. It was totally ****ing unbelievably astounding they managed it in 1969
Under no circumstances is putting someone on the moon "meh"
So "meh" that you felt compelled to come into this thread and tell us how meh you think it is?
Are you saying only people who get a bit frothy about it are allowed to post in here?
I kind of think its a bit meh. Not the engineer etc,obviously not meh. But i am extremely cynical in what it will ultimately achieve and why and who its being done by. That money could have been far better spent on the ground.
That money could have been far better spent on the ground.
As always it's not an either/or situation. Do you really believe that if Trump had cancelled Artemis he'd have spent that money on education, health, welfare etc?
That money could have been far better spent on the ground.
As always it's not an either/or situation. Do you really believe that if Trump had cancelled Artemis he'd have spent that money on education, health, welfare etc?
No, not at all. But it will be used by him as a distraction from the issues he causes.
Under no circumstances is putting someone on the moon "meh"
What good did it achieve though?
So "meh" they havent bothered going back since 1972. What they "achieved" flying around the moon this time they could have done so much more cheaply without humans on board.
The whole point of the program is for humans to go back to the moon so obviously the hardware needs to be tested with a human "cargo" before taking the step of landing. Having determined that the Orion capsule is up to the task (once the bog has been fixed) the next two missions are Artemis 3 to test the docking process to the lander (in low Earth orbit) prior to Artemis 4 which will be the landing. I'm amazed this is being contemplated in only 4 missions and that in itself shows huge technological advances since Apollo. Personally I don't like the look of the landers (especially the SpaceX one which looks ready to topple over) and I think an unmanned landing of one of those on the moon would be advisable (if possible) prior to sending humans down to the surface in one.
The whole point of the program is for humans to go back to the moon so obviously the hardware needs to be tested with a human "cargo" before taking the step of landing
I have a 5er on any and all actually ideas and technological advances wend their way quickly into the paws of a very few companies and individuals for private financial gain before another boot touches the surface of the moon. All before the orange **** dies/leaves office and any benefit os seen by humanity.
That's the point in the program
Criticism is not a recent thing, obviously. Notably...
... from the first few times around. The thing to remember here is the money isn't just blown into Space.
There are always incalculable benefits to these things, not the least of which is inspiration.
