Yes, this is my site -- though I am not the author. We are a news feed for news, trying to recreate the social media experience (brevity, following who you want, etc) with a feed populated exclusively by journalists.
You can click on any author's name to see their bio, affiliations, and other threads.
I feel like over the past few decades I have seen tons of news like this or that at least feels like this where there is some announcement about tangible progress that is made towards our returning to the moon -- some new prototype capsule announcement, a new unveiling of a rocket plan, the new suits, the "biosphere" stuff, etc. -- only to then see a published time horizon for the moon return which seems to always be "five years out." Any reason to expect THIS time around is different?
NASA's Artemis program is generally on track - Artemis 1 (uncrewed test flight into lunar orbit which then returned to Earth) was successful in 2022. Artemis 2 (humans going into lunar orbit) is scheduled for next year, and indications seem to be that it's on track. Artemis 3 (humans landing on the moon) is scheduled for 2025.
So there has been very tangible progress in the form of Artemis 1, plus the schedule is to get people back on the moon in two years. Obviously it could be delayed, but we're pretty clearly out of the realm of a theoretical moon landing and into planning/implementation for a specifically planned and approved NASA mission. I would definitely put money on humans on the moon in well under 5 years.
Starship will be the rocket delivering them to the surface. It is likely to have a first orbital test within the next 3 months. That will be a major milestone, approaching the capability to once again land and return humans from the lunar surface.
Artemis has been generally proceeding well, but I understand OPs attitude, considering that the progress before Artemis (i.e. pre-2017ish) was really faltering, the whole Constellation/SLS/Orion trifecta was largely a mess even if bits of them are now getting finally some use
There is no way they'll have a lander ready by then. They spent 10 years and $1B just to develop a suit before giving up. The lander RFP only went out in 2019. Their primary selection is a massive tower that's going to land on an uneven rocky surface and use the same engines to take off. There's way too much risk involved for them to ever meet that date. Apollo 12 landed on the edge of a crater with enough tilt that they were close to aborting the mission. If that happens with a starship they're all dead.
They really need to work on reducing the glare on the visor and illuminating the face in the dark. Otherwise we won't be able to see their emotions on camera as they're attacked by aliens.
Maybe just full MR and forget about the visor? That way we can see the aliens sneaking up on them as they blindly bumble around deceived by their advanced technology.
Yes, I'm joking. But really there are reasons to do MR/VR in space due to the huge dynamic range and availability of non-visible spectra. The huge clear face shield looks like a point of failure (as are joints etc). At the same time, I expect once there is MR for some cheesy horror movie to use it to arouse innate human fears of the unseen. One could always flip a covering visor up to see, if there were a failure... and once part of your space suit is failing, you've already got problems!
Did you miss that we've already been back to the moon with Artemis 1? The crewed mission is still Artemis 2 scheduled for 2024 now, only 3 years late (but that's 12 years of development, hardly problematic.)
Is there any specific reason why the suit is not white/reflective? It looks like that would be thermally not ideal, and a departure from all previous designs.
>Though this prototype uses a dark gray cover material, the final version will likely be all-white when worn by NASA astronauts on the Moon’s surface, to help keep the astronauts safe and cool while working in the harsh environment of space.
I love the idea of the Lunar Gateway space station's extreme orbit, which will allow astronauts to travel quickly between the station and the surface of the Moon with relatively low power consumption. "Attention all taking the 9:30 to Mare Serenitatis, please mind the gap between the platform and the capsule!"
It stands out to me that it is not white but black with red accents. A pure white suit would surely be more visible right I'm guessing. If an accident occurs and you are lying half in the regolith with the red accents as the only visual guide, i can't help but think a white suit would be better.
Maybe a white suit gets dirty easily from the regolith anyway so they went with dark to start with ?
> What's the point of returning? To prove we haven't regressed since the 60's?
Essentially the same point that we had in 60s, to be stepping stone for greater things.
Artemis is basically rebooting the manned space program, and that inevitably includes retracing some past steps to regain the position. Progress is not always a linear straightforward thing, occasionally there are setbacks and losses.
So the exitement for Artemis is not just for the mission itself, but more for it being a sign of manned space programs getting attention again, hopefully this time on a more sustainable basis than Apollo.
I have to agree, I was 11 years old when Apollo 11 landed, I thought that by now you could fly there in something like an airplane or that we would have been to Mars. It feels a bit disappointing for sure.
The gateway station will provide experience operating outside LEO. That's a valuable thing to pursue. Lunar operations give gateway something to do while advancing the tech stack.
> The main difference between the prototype shown today and what will be going to the moon is that the ones going to the moon will be white instead of dark. “That’s really for thermal reasons,” Mr. Ralston said.
Readit News
Here's the official NASA channel video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5KnOtI4fS3U
Also NYTimes and CBS News articles:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/15/science/nasa-moon-suit-as...
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/nasa-axiom-space-spacesuit-...
Yes, this is my site -- though I am not the author. We are a news feed for news, trying to recreate the social media experience (brevity, following who you want, etc) with a feed populated exclusively by journalists.
You can click on any author's name to see their bio, affiliations, and other threads.
Deleted Comment
So there has been very tangible progress in the form of Artemis 1, plus the schedule is to get people back on the moon in two years. Obviously it could be delayed, but we're pretty clearly out of the realm of a theoretical moon landing and into planning/implementation for a specifically planned and approved NASA mission. I would definitely put money on humans on the moon in well under 5 years.
Wikipedia article about Artemis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program
There is no way they'll have a lander ready by then. They spent 10 years and $1B just to develop a suit before giving up. The lander RFP only went out in 2019. Their primary selection is a massive tower that's going to land on an uneven rocky surface and use the same engines to take off. There's way too much risk involved for them to ever meet that date. Apollo 12 landed on the edge of a crater with enough tilt that they were close to aborting the mission. If that happens with a starship they're all dead.
Dead Comment
Maybe just full MR and forget about the visor? That way we can see the aliens sneaking up on them as they blindly bumble around deceived by their advanced technology.
Yes, I'm joking. But really there are reasons to do MR/VR in space due to the huge dynamic range and availability of non-visible spectra. The huge clear face shield looks like a point of failure (as are joints etc). At the same time, I expect once there is MR for some cheesy horror movie to use it to arouse innate human fears of the unseen. One could always flip a covering visor up to see, if there were a failure... and once part of your space suit is failing, you've already got problems!
SLS has already launched its test flight. Starship HLS (the lander) is funded and in development.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/spacesuit-for-nasa-s-artemis-ii...
https://twitter.com/skrishna/status/1635998864531439617
Maybe a white suit gets dirty easily from the regolith anyway so they went with dark to start with ?
We're still using the same approach as in the 1960's. No reusable rocket, no in-situ resource utilization, no new breakthrough tech.
What's the point of returning? To prove we haven't regressed since the 60's?
Essentially the same point that we had in 60s, to be stepping stone for greater things.
Artemis is basically rebooting the manned space program, and that inevitably includes retracing some past steps to regain the position. Progress is not always a linear straightforward thing, occasionally there are setbacks and losses.
So the exitement for Artemis is not just for the mission itself, but more for it being a sign of manned space programs getting attention again, hopefully this time on a more sustainable basis than Apollo.