I couldn’t find an existing thread for this so wanted to start one.
NASA has built SLS, contracted a number of private companies, and collaborated with a number of international partners to begin a new era of lunar exploration.
On Monday it will be the first launch window for an unmanned SLS rocket to travel to the moon, deliver some small satellites, orbit, and return to Earth. This mission is going to last around 42 days.
The rocket is a big’un:
Artemis II will carry four astronauts around the moon.
Artemis III is planned to see the first attempt to land two humans on the moon.
Artemis IV will establish Lunar Gateway - a space station in lunar orbit.
Artemis V to XI will involve more lunar landings, delivering vehicles and infrastructure to the moon, including a surface habitat.
The theory is that these launches will be continuing through the 2030’s and possibly beyond.
For someone who is obsessed with Apollo, but was born many years after, this is something for my generation to get excited about. It’s been a tough few years here on Earth, and I’m eager for a gigantic space, science and engineering project to take my mind off things and let me dream again. I’m going to be like a 5 year-old boy on Monday!
So help me understand something. How does it benefit humans on earth to have a few men living on the moon? What do they expect to learn about the moon that we don’t already know? What happened to the mission to Mars? We haven’t even been there yet.
I hate to be that guy, but I’m of the same opinion as dolphinboy, it seems rather meaningless to go back to the Moon, and awfully expensive. As Obama said of the program, “We’ve been there, done that.” Should be Mars or bust.
The transit times to the moon and back seem strangely long for some reason – 8-14 days outbound, 9-19 days return. Also why the big uncertainty gap? By contrast, Apollo made it to the moon in a little over three days, and made it back in just under three.
Actually, if we’re serious about manned planetary exploration, a staging area on the moon does make sense. I’m just not sure that manned exploration in the foreseeable future is a good idea in the first place. Think of the robotic probes that could be sent all over for just the cost of a manned Mars program – sophisticated data-gathering probes all over Mars, on Europa, Enceladus, Titan, maybe even Pluto. I fear that manned expeditions to Mars would just end up being a larger-scale bust than the Apollo missions: “Well, we got there. Now what?”
Anyway, just one guy’s opinion. Not looking to be a party-pooper here. As this program evolves, I’ll certainly be following it with great interest, even if I don’t necessarily feel it’s the best way to do planetary science.
The Apollo moon missions had three-astronaut crews; two of the three would go down to the lunar service in the Lunar Module, while the third remained in orbit above the moon in the Command Module. In all six Apollo missions which successfully landed men on the Moon, both of the astronauts in the Lunar Module left it to walk on the surface.
In Apollo 11, for example, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin went to the surface, while Michael Collins remained in orbit.
IIRC, the reason for sending three astronauts with one of them assigned to remain in the CM was to cover various potential contingencies, like possibly having to maneuver to assist with docking, and general caretaking of the CM while the other two were on the moon.
I was aware but my wording was not clear - I meant in relation to this program.
There are definite and obvious benefits to space travel and exploration but is this project going to add to that considerably? I don’t know. There will be valuable science being done and we will learn lots about how to operate in non-earth environments using resources and finding solutions. But SLS is undoubtedly costing a ridiculous amount with politics playing a big part in money being invested inefficiently. I think this will be the last major project like this - or at least it should be. Next time, the commercial companies will play a bigger part. Although SpaceX will be building a lunar lander for this and using the same tech to go for a Mars shot.
Regardless of the expense I’m going to be all over this.
I lived through Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, and getting to the moon was a huge accomplishment, but after Apollo 17, I felt we had done it. Since we already did that, spending billions of dollars getting back there seems strange to me. If there were rare elements we desperately needed to survive as a species, that would be different.
Sure, you can always learn more about the moon and living off the earth, but given the climate challenges we face over the next 100 years, I think someday we will look back and wonder why we did this project. Plus, I just assumed Mars was the next extra-terrestrial body for humans to explore, but it’s not. I’m not looking for an argument.
I’m probably not the best placed person to argue this and I’m not sure if the project is truly the best way to advance human space exploration. But Mars is a huge step, probably too big to do in a single stride. Establishing lunar gateway is supposed to create a stepping stone.
Even if it’s not the most logical or efficient move it’s still some small effort to take humanity towards an interplanetary future. I don’t think the options should be tackling climate change or this. It should be tackling climate change and exploring space… and a hell of a lot of other things. On top of that I think space exploration has helped us to see our planet as the precious object that it is. Space has not only allowed us to identify and monitor environmental issues but has given us a change of perspective. The environmental movement has grown at the same time as space activities have - though this is a conversation for another thread perhaps.
But, why go back to the moon? I’d say we’ve barely been there. We had 12 people spend a couple days each. The plan is to go back for much more extended stays. This allows us to do more science, but most importantly, it lets us know how the human body and other organisms react to lunar gravity.
We know that 1G is pretty good, and we know that 0G is pretty bad, but we don’t know about anything in between.
Going to Mars will need this data. If you go to Mars, you are committed to staying there for at least a few months before you are able to come home. We can’t make it work on Mars until we can make it on the Moon.
Just out of curiosity, who decides what NASA should do next? I realize taxpayers pay for it, and congress funds it, but does congress have a say in how the money is spent? Does the president or anyone other than NASA have a say?
Congress has a whole lot of say. They are the holders of the purse strings.
Some parts of the budget are left as discretionary by congress, so NASA admin gets to choose how it is spent, but a large part of it is directed. We have SLS because congress said that we would build it, who would build it, and how it would be built.
Congress will make mandates as to what projects NASA is working on, and often even mandate the companies that will get the contracts, as well as in which congressional district some parts will be made.
I’m looking at a conceptual drawing of the Lunar Gateway space station to be launched in 2024. If the crew airlock isn’t going to be built by Roscosmos, then whom? We should probably figure this out before we start building it, would be my suggestion.
No idea about the uncertainty gap, but here’s my guess about the speed: fuel. Apollo needed to be fast so that they’d be able to manage with less food and oxygen. With unmanned craft, there’s less of a need to rush.
Hmmmm… How long did the 1960s unmanned trips take? [Leaves SDMB for Wikipedia for a few minutes…] Scratch that idea. Surveyor 7 left Earth on Jan 7 1968, and did a successful soft landing on the moon on Jan 10. Anyone else want to guess why Artemis will take so long?
