| |
| ▲ | hgoel 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >Blue Moon is one of the two lander contractors. But pretty much everyone thinks Artemis is Starship HLS or bust. That isn't my impression of NASA/government opinion. Starship HLS is seen as the eventual option, as is obvious from the testing campaign. It'll get there eventually and offer unprecedented capability, but it's very clearly several years out. Blue's option was being seen as the faster option due to having a less risky critical path. The rocket was already orbital, fewer refueling flights were needed, the engines weren't pushing the limits of materials technology, no reusable heat shield to worry about. Though, ultimately it's worth keeping in mind that the landers aren't actually the current bottleneck in the program. The space suits are in total development hell. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Blue's option was being seen as the faster option due to having a less risky critical path Source? (Not doubting, and it sounds vaguely familiar.) > the landers aren't actually the current bottleneck in the program. The space suits are in total development hell The neat thing about Artemis is it’s pushing so many boundaries that it’s reasonable to debate the actual bottlenecks. I still think launch is it, since even without spacesuits you can do robotic construction. (Hell, even without HLS you can ship nuclear power stations and solar panels and rovers.) | | |
| ▲ | hgoel 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I was speaking mainly off my reading of the discussions on the internet in recent months, but I'm assuming the impression stems from this OIG report https://oig.nasa.gov/news/artemis-lander-program-faces-sched... It seems to point to rising costs on SpaceX's end, and in my reading, is very critical of them compared to BO. >The neat thing about Artemis is it’s pushing so many boundaries that it’s reasonable to debate the actual bottlenecks. I still think launch is it, since even without spacesuits you can do robotic construction I believe that suits are still important because you can't really do much with a crew there without them. There aren't even new EVA suits available. And, of course politically, it's going to be seen very poorly if they can't do a "One small step for a man..." moment. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | That’s a fair criticism. I’m just never remembering anyone thinking BO was the safer option. | | |
| ▲ | avmich 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Can't we, at worst, use Apollo-level suits - maybe actial suits? - for small Moon walks? | | |
| ▲ | hgoel 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As mentioned, Apollo suits are neither safe, nor in working condition now. Even the EVA suits on the ISS (which are only usable for space walks) are decades old and just barely being kept going. The US simply hasn't been able to bring new spacesuits into use for a long time, every single time, the costs and timelines have spiraled. Probably because a lot of the knowledge has been lost to old age, and the new guys need some time to relearn those lessons and improve on them. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No. One, they don’t exist in working condition. Two, the tolerances and materials were unacceptable by modern standards. (And for modern purposes. We’re going there to do shit. Not be Boy Scouts.) |
| |
| ▲ | 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | tsimionescu 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I still think launch is it, since even without spacesuits you can do robotic construction. The plans for Artemis are public, and they don't include any robotic construction before a manned landing. Neveemind that the idea of a moon base is fanciful, I think it's very unlikely to happen in anything resembling current world climate. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > plans for Artemis are public They also change every time a Congressional staffer sneezes. If the space suits don’t work, a pivot would be easier than having the space suits with no rocket to put them on. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Polizeiposaune 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Does Blue Origin not have another pad? (Did they blow up a pad or a test stand?) The explosion happened at their only completed pad. They reportedly have a second pad under construction (for the larger "9x4" variant of New Glenn) but I've not seen a lot of detail about how far along it is. Would not be surprised to see them accelerating construction of the new pad. | |
| ▲ | NitpickLawyer 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > But pretty much everyone thinks Artemis is Starship HLS or bust. Right now it seems like it's Axiom or bust, with their suits. The suits have missed a lot of milestones, and there's not much point in going to the Moon without suits. Latest NASA OIG report put them somewhere in the 2030s at best... | | |
| ▲ | hparadiz 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Can always use the existing ISS suits modified for the moon. | | |
| ▲ | NitpickLawyer 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Heh, I don't think so. The ISS suits have their own problems, are custom made for the ISS, are bulky AF, and "modified for the moon" might take longer than expected. | |
| ▲ | philipwhiuk 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The Moon is frankly a totally different environment. Lunar dust is notorious. Also the ISS suits themselves are being replaced, by Axiom, because they are failing in near-fatal ways periodically. | | |
| ▲ | hparadiz 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Been thinking about this quite a bit. I think every lunar airlock will end up with a wash station and will end up using basic water sprays to get the job done. Soil compactors can be used outside to compact the dust and prevent it from being an issue during moon walks as well. I think once a moon base is established most moon walks will be on-base where dust would have been dealt with in the first few years and then after that it's basically like walking on compacted soil so it won't be loose. And if you're wondering why they might use water for this well... water will be abundant and basically every habitat will have a municipal water hookup. A moon base might quickly find itself with several hectares of water and no where to put it. Might even end up injecting it into the ground where the water will be able to maintain it's liquid state (moon crust quickly reaches room temperature only a few dozens of meters underground). |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | imtringued 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Blue Origin's lunar architecture is designed for a maximum of twelve moon landings per year for the Blue Moon Mk2 without using Orion and the same $4 billion budget per Orion+SLS flight. SpaceX's architecture requires a second cislunar starship for the return trip. That will mean at most four moon landings per year and even that is optimistic. The large size of Starship makes return trips and lunar refueling really unattractive. If SpaceX wants to compete they will need to build a dedicated cislunar vehicle. | |
| ▲ | _moof 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They blew up LC-36. |
|
