NASA Plans Crewed Moon Mission For February (bbc.com) 46
NASA aims to launch its first crewed lunar mission in over 50 years, as early as February. The 10-day Artemis II mission will send four astronauts on a lunar flyby to test systems, paving the way for future Moon landings under the Artemis program. The BBC reports: Lakiesha Hawkins, Nasa's acting deputy associate administrator said it would be an important moment in the human exploration of space. "We together have a front row seat to history," she told a news conference this afternoon. "The launch window could open as early as the fifth of February, but we want to emphasize that safety is our top priority." Artemis Launch Director, Charlie Blackwell-Thompson explained that the powerful rocket system built to take the astronauts to the Moon, the Space Launch System (SLS) was "pretty much stacked and ready to go." All that remained was to complete the crew capsule, called Orion, connected to SLS and to complete ground tests.
The Artemis II launch will see four astronauts go on a ten-day round trip to the Moon and back to the Earth. The astronauts, Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, and Christina Koch, of Nasa and Jeremy Hansen of the Canadian Space Agency, will not land on the Moon, though they will be the first crew to travel beyond low Earth orbit since Apollo 17 in 1972. The lead Artemis II flight director, Jeff Radigan explained that the crew would be flying further into space than anyone had been before. "They're going at least 5,000 nautical miles (9,200Km) past the Moon, which is much higher than previous missions have gone," he told reporters. Further reading: NASA Introduces 10 New Astronaut Candidates
The Artemis II launch will see four astronauts go on a ten-day round trip to the Moon and back to the Earth. The astronauts, Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, and Christina Koch, of Nasa and Jeremy Hansen of the Canadian Space Agency, will not land on the Moon, though they will be the first crew to travel beyond low Earth orbit since Apollo 17 in 1972. The lead Artemis II flight director, Jeff Radigan explained that the crew would be flying further into space than anyone had been before. "They're going at least 5,000 nautical miles (9,200Km) past the Moon, which is much higher than previous missions have gone," he told reporters. Further reading: NASA Introduces 10 New Astronaut Candidates
Of what year? (Score:5, Funny)
February of what year?
Re: (Score:2)
Coming this February: Challenger II Electric Boogaloo
Nuances (Score:2)
I guess it's:
NASA Plans Crewed Moon Mission For February
vs
NASA Plans Crewed to the Moon Mission For February
Reading TFS, it's doesn't seem they are going to land.
Re: (Score:2)
Your semantic change makes no difference and isn't even 'proper' headline grammar... It *is* a moon mission, not a space station or earth orbital mission. Its just not a crewed moon *landing* mission. Its been well known for a *long* time the first SLS/Artemis launch to the moon is a round-trip-no-landing, just like with Apollo 8, to check out the systems. The synopsis even states "will not land on the Moon" so I'm not sure why you think a different subject is needed.
Because an average person reading the headline would think that they are going to the moon, not that they are going around the moon. "NASA plans moon-orbit mission for february" would be clearer and not that much longer.
Re: (Score:2)
You're creating a distinction without a large difference.
You are splitting hairs over the definition of what "going to the moon" means - does it include going anywhere within the moon's gravitational sphere of influence, or do you have to actually touch regolith for it to count?
hint: if you have to touch regolith, then you are claiming that Apollo 8 and Apollo 13 did not go to the moon, which is going to cause far more confusion and argument.
Re: (Score:2)
You're creating a distinction without a large difference.
You are splitting hairs over the definition of what "going to the moon" means - does it include going anywhere within the moon's gravitational sphere of influence, or do you have to actually touch regolith for it to count?
hint: if you have to touch regolith, then you are claiming that Apollo 8 and Apollo 13 did not go to the moon, which is going to cause far more confusion and argument.
*shrugs*
I *would* argue that Apollo 8 and 13 did not go to the moon, though Apollo 8 is notable for being the first human spacecraft to enter lunar orbit, which means it still a huge milestone. Apollo 13, of course, failed spectacularly in its attempt to reach the moon, and is notable for being one of the most amazing saves in the history of the space program. And clearly they are both lunar missions, in that they are moon-related, whereas when I think of a moon mission, I think of a mission specifically
Re: (Score:2)
"I *would* argue that Apollo 8 and 13 did not go to the moon"
Hey, this is your nit. So...
No 'Apollo' went to the Moon. That achievement was credited to Lunar Landers...
Apollo 8 was an unqualified success.
Apollo 13 was in fact a partly successful mission, and was indeed NASA's finest hour. Everything before that laid the groundwork for recovery from sure disaster, and everything after that was more mindful than ever of the real challenges of space.
And forgotten when NASA started believing they were smarter t
Re: (Score:2)
"I *would* argue that Apollo 8 and 13 did not go to the moon"
Hey, this is your nit. So...
No 'Apollo' went to the Moon. That achievement was credited to Lunar Landers...
You mean the... wait for it... Apollo lunar module [wikipedia.org]?
Apollo 8 was an unqualified success.
Didn't say it was't. I just said it was a lunar mission, but not a mission to the moon.
Apollo 13 was in fact a partly successful mission, and was indeed NASA's finest hour. Everything before that laid the groundwork for recovery from sure disaster, and everything after that was more mindful than ever of the real challenges of space.
No question about that. Any mission where the astronauts return home in one piece is at least partially successful, because that one ultra-critical part still went right.
And forgotten when NASA started believing they were smarter than they were, and the Shuttle program cost astronaut lives, many needlessly.
I have to disagree with that. Yeah, the shuttle design sucked in a lot of critical ways, but we mostly have the military to blame for that, because of their requirement that satellite retrieval be a c
Re: (Score:2)
I understand all of your points. We can agree.
But Artemis is constrained by the current NASA process. SpaceX seems to be employing the fail fast rap[id iteration method, and it's been pretty interesting. NASA has fallen out of the Apollo-style of iteration, and here we now have complex designs that seem to be used to validate/invalidate those complex design choices. Much of Apollo benefited from extravagant budgets, but it usually costs less to think than to build. If I could be king I would tell NASA to ge
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, 10 launches, 9 explosions. The math is good....
Artemis (block 1), not Starship. So more like 50 launch attempts, 1 launch, no explosions. :-D
In all seriousness, three launch attempts, but it felt like 50.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They are going to fly around the moon to test the systems out, like Apollo 10 did. Also like Apollo 10, the lander isn't ready yet.
Blue Origin is supposed to be supplying the first one. They will need to do a robotic mission to land it and take off again before a crewed one goes, so this isn't as close to the goal as Apollo 10 was. SpaceX is also supposed to be producing a lander, a modified Starship, but again, years away from getting to the moon and being man rated.
It looks like the race with China is hea
Re: Nuances (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe more like Apollo 8?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apollo 8 actually entered lunar orbit. A lunar flyby had been considered by the Soviets but they couldn't do it. As a shakedown of the spacecraft's systems this achieves nothing, they already had an unmanned flight. If they had a working lunar module they could at least to a proper full rehearsal like Apollo 10, but NASA lacks courage now.
Apollo 8 was the mission where the lander wasn't ready. Apollo 10's LM was functional, just they didn't have enough fuel to land and lacked the approach/landing software i
Re: Nuances (Score:5, Interesting)
NASA as an organization doesn't so much "lack courage" as they lack funding. For a measly 4% of the Federal budget we landed on the moon, now NASA gets less than 10% of that amount. Had their budget continued at that level an ISS equivalent would have been launched by 1979, and a permanent moon base was planned to open in the mid-'80s. Instead Congress in its infinite wisdom decided that the advance of science and exploration needed to be abandoned.
All NASA budgets since its foundation, combined, including all of Apollo - $680 billion
2024 Pentagon budget, without intel agencies or Black Budget - $841
2024 NASA budget - $24 billion
2024 Space Farce budget - $30
This is why we can't have nice things.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget inflation and the usual graft. Plus the fact that just going to the moon seems like a waste of money if we aren't going to build a base or do anything with it. Maybe if we sent a few rockets that landed base modules you could build a base or at least get power on the planet. Hell we could have the whole thing done with remote robots with the success with the mars rover. Though I guess practicality doesn't give you as much clout as putting a person on a ship.
Re: (Score:3)
If we are ever to get off this single planet and expand into the larger universe we need to learn how to live elsewhere, and the only way to learn that is to go do it. Otherwise we go the way of the Neanderthal. Staying on Earth ensures our ultimate extinction, while if we move into the larger universe the possibilities are quite literally infinite.
On the other hand, if you're a fan of the Singularity just staying with robotic exploration for now would make sense, gaining experience for when your mind can
Re: (Score:2)
Staying on Earth ensures our ultimate extinction
So does staying in this universe ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of relying on commercial providers to develop this stuff at their own expense is okay if you aren't in any hurry to get back to the moon, but if you are... Their commercial timelines are probably not going to line up with your political ones.
Still, it would be interesting if Chinese and Americans could meet up on the moon in the next decade, Apollo-Soyuz style.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet somehow we manage to spend 45-55% of that budget every year in useless war toys to massacre innocents across the entire planet. I guess it's easy to see where the priorities of our leaders are.
Re: (Score:3)
I once drove through Oregon without stepping out of my car, only stopping for traffic lights.
Hoax Part 2 (Score:2)
I'm sure their new studio will be amazing.
(joking, if you didn't pick up on it)
Re: (Score:2)
Make sure you count the fingers on the AI generated "astronauts"
"to test systems for future missions" (Score:2)
So it's effectively a beta test and anything can go wrong, and the astronauts are just soace lab rats.
Re:"to test systems for future missions" (Score:5, Informative)
I think the technical term is "Spam in a can".
Re: "to test systems for future missions" (Score:2)
Re: "to test systems for future missions" (Score:2)
See capricorn one
Awesome, but, it's an Elon estimate (Score:3)
So reliability is variable and includes fireballs.
It's SLS so budget and schedule overruns (Score:2)
But don't worry, the SLS program was never about going to space and all about employment.
You can be proud that the rocket standing on the platform was at least built in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Just look at the flying kluge of the Space Shuttle, which is what you get when politicians and generals think they know how to design a spacecraft better than actual rocket scientists.
Elon will bring them home again. (Score:2)
On his way back from the Mars mission.
nautical miles ? (Score:1)
> "They're going at least 5,000 nautical miles past the Moon"
that's a surprising choice of unit.
1. it's not an SI unit
2. it seems most relevant when talking about distances w/r/t earth's Lat/Long scheme.
presumably the person has a reason, i wonder what it is
Re: nautical miles ? (Score:1)
The Artemis II flight director is potentially being a bit sloppy with his facts when he claims they are going further into space than anyone has gone before simply because they will flyby at a higher distance. Surely it depends more on the earth/moon distance at the time of the mission. This v
Re: nautical miles ? (Score:2)
i checked with someone who knows,
and yeah, nautical miles are an uncommon unit in spaceflight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are they really going to be okay?
Probably not, try not to think about it too hard, and don't look up.
Epstein distraction (Score:1)
Congratulations NASA! It is amazing what we can do when we really need a distraction. Now, about those Epstein files?
Re: (Score:2)
plus 1
51st State? (Score:3)
If the Artemis mission to land on the moon happens in 2028 (as planned), what are the odds of the moon being declared US territory...?