Nasa Announces Artemis III Mission No Longer Aims To Send Humans To Moon (theguardian.com) 128
Nasa announced on Friday radical changes to its delayed Artemis III mission to land humans back on the moon, as the US space agency grapples with technical glitches and criticism that it is trying to do too much too soon. From a report: The abrupt shift in strategy was laid out by the space agency's recently confirmed administrator, Jared Isaacman. Announcing the changes on Friday, he said that Nasa would introduce at least one new moon flight before attempting to put humans back on the lunar surface for the first time in more than half a century, in 2028.
The new, more incremental approach would give the Nasa team a chance to test flight and refine its technology. As part of the changes, the Artemis II mission to fly humans around the moon this year, without landing, would also be pushed back from its latest scheduled launch on 6 March to 1 April at the earliest.
"Everybody agrees this is the only way forward," Isaacman told reporters at a news conference. "I know this is how Nasa changed the world, and this is how Nasa is going to do it again."
The new, more incremental approach would give the Nasa team a chance to test flight and refine its technology. As part of the changes, the Artemis II mission to fly humans around the moon this year, without landing, would also be pushed back from its latest scheduled launch on 6 March to 1 April at the earliest.
"Everybody agrees this is the only way forward," Isaacman told reporters at a news conference. "I know this is how Nasa changed the world, and this is how Nasa is going to do it again."
Just cancel already (Score:5, Interesting)
Artemis has been a pork laden boondoggle since its inception. Just cancel this turd already.
Re: (Score:2)
But then China will get back to the moon first.
IMHO even 2028 looks optimistic, given that they will need to prove that the landers are safe. Starship is a long way from being man rated, let alone landing on the moon and taking off again. Blue Origin are harder to predict because they don't use the "test early, test often" model that SpaceX uses to spread debris around the world, but 2028 is ambitious for anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
America is broken in so many ways, but having something like Artemis might help stitch it back together.
If it wasn't bad in every way, maybe. But it is, and it should be allowed to die and the money spent on a more sensible project. The best time to kill the project was immediately. The second-best time would have been between then and now, earlier rather than later. But NASA doesn't even seem to want to get to third best.
Re: (Score:2)
The required reliance on Shuttle era parts and infrastructure is what doomed Artemis from the beginning. This was done of course to keep the political money flowing. I'm all for NASA succeeding but the powers to be have not allowed that to happen. Politicians are broke, not America.
Re: (Score:2)
2026 Pentagon budget - $848 billion +152 billion, not including the alphabet soup of intel agencies
2026 Fatherland Security budget - $68 billion
2026 Space Farce budget - $38 billion
2026 NASA budget - $24 billion
All NASA budgets since foundation, combined - $650 billion
This is why we can't have nice things.
Nitpicking (Score:2)
Shouldn't "Nasa" be displayed as "NASA"? Mixed upper and lower -case implies it's a name or a word. All caps implies it's an acronym (or initialism).
(...slow Friday...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Shouldn't "Nasa" be displayed as "NASA"? Mixed upper and lower -case implies it's a name or a word. All caps implies it's an acronym (or initialism).
How do you spell RADAR or LASER?
Both of those have gone from being acronyms to being names.
Chinse will beat us (Score:2)
I'm calling it: The Chinese will land on the moon before the U.S. does again. Their program is much less ambitious (single launch and capsule/lander more like Apollo). It requires a lot less reinventing the wheel than NASA's convoluted Artemis/Starship combo.
Perhaps that will be the "Sputnik moment" that jolts NASA/congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Also China is more inclined to overlook little things like safety to reach a goal.
Does it still count as a moon landing if everyone dies on impact?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what the U.S. did in the 1960s to get to the moon. There were only 12 crewed Apollo missions. One ended with the death of the whole crew (Apollo I), and another very nearly did (Apollo 13).
Re: Chinse will beat us (Score:1)
The CCP cares too much about appearances to risk the embarrassment of a manned rocket to the moon blowing up. Itâ(TM)s more likely that the American mission will go wrong due to complexities of working with too many contractors and too many stipulations that Congress writes into funding the program.
Re: (Score:2)
It might not be enough, though. The truth is that landing a small capsule on the moon using a large but conventional rocket is something that we did over 50 years ago.
I’m really, really, really hoping that the Starship development is a smashing success. If I had to list my top
Re: (Score:2)
My take away from this mission change is that no one at NASA believes SpaceX (or anyone else) will have anything close to ready for them by the time the mission is scheduled. For all the progress Starship is a long, long ways from being able to carry humans, let alone land on the moon, to say nothing about returning.
Re: (Score:2)
I get the feeling that the people who work on Artemis simply feel no urgency. Wake up at 10. Put in 2-3 hours of real effort to keep things minimally rolling, and cash a nice salary for the work. No sense of urgency. 30 year old technology. No real consequences if the project is delayed by 6 months. Or a year. Or 5 years.
Starship could fail. Musk is losing focus on space and liq
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
This is illuminating. 2 years ago, he takes them apart. On stage. In there face. "I just decided to go there and say the things nobody was going to say."
SmarterEveryDay - I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) [youtube.com]
The whole presentation is good but you can skip to 18:33 to get to the meat.
"You're terrified to talk right now. You know the truth and you're afraid to say it.
...
... ... We're two years out and we
We are going. Right?
Guys, are we going? You guys should know this.
Re: (Score:1)
Another banger.
"Okay, so if I'm not mistaken, this room is full of people that are industry leaders that are in charge of taking humans back to the moon. ...in your head, answer the following question, 'Have I read NASA SP 287?'. The title of the document is 'What made Apollo a success?'
Have you read it?
And if you have not read it, I'm not joking about this, shame on you. Seriously.
You have a whole generation of engineers that did the coolest thing engineering humans have ever done and they gave
Proving the conspiracy theorists right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, ...
I watched the landing life
How own can think it was a conspiracy and it never happened is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
ugh...where are the editors? (Score:1)
You know what would be a giant leap for mankind? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cynical translation (Score:4, Funny)
Nasa would introduce at least one new moon flight before attempting to put humans back on the lunar surface
They haven't finished designing and testing the gold plaque with Trump's name on it. Getting it down to a manageable / transportable size and weight seems to be the main sticking point. Apparently, "someone" wants it to be visible from Earth and doesn't understand the impractically of that. /s
Re: (Score:2)
This is the right thing to do (Score:1)
I'd much rather let the Chinese get there the first time before we get there again than have a foreseeable disaster kill the crew.
in other news (Score:2)
In other news, NASA has announced it is more cost effective to bring the moon closer to earth for American humans to reach it safely.
Re: Pussies (Score:2)
Re:Good moves (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Which astronauts do you feel were not qualified for mission?
Re: (Score:2)
Which astronauts do you feel were not qualified for mission?
The problem comes from BEFORE the crew was determined. They announced that there would be a black man and a woman going to the moon. Right there it was determined that two of the crew were being selected from those who were in those classifications not from just which 4 person team would be best. It became which 4 person team WITH a black man AND a woman would be best. This could end with the same result but that seems unlikely. If the best crew happened to be all trans people of different races I woul
Re:Good moves (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure what you mean by "fishy," or what your complaint has to do with qualification. Qualification and "best" are not the same thing. It's not clear to me that it's even possible to define "the absolutely best 4 candidates for the job, in the entire country" in any really meaningful way. Kind of like how the majority of drivers think they're above-average drivers. That's possible and completely logical because not everyone has the same criteria.
It was decided, for better or for worse, before the crew was determined, that part of the "qualification" for this mission is to be representative of the population. Because of the special nature of the mission. "We came in peace for all mankind" is I believe the plaque they left on Apollo 11. It turns out that that concept of "all mankind" is important to some people, if not you.
Now, if you select someone who's actually unqualified just to meet that ideal, I could see a problem. I don't see that happening. Do you?
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, so then all that said let's say it's a given, which astronauts do you feel were not qualified for mission?
Re: (Score:2)
They announced that there would be a black man and a woman going to the moon.
Woah, woah. Did they announce that one black man and one woman must go to the moon. If so, citation please. Or was it that of the crew selected, there was one black man and one woman?
Based on your post and the 18 potential astronauts [spaceflightnow.com]. The only black man appears to be Captain Victor Glover, 185 days in space, US Navy Captain, two masters degrees in flight and systems engineering, test pilot
These were the potential women based on a release in 2020:
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think are the chances that the ones chosen to fulfill Biden's quotas for vagina possession and skin color just happened to also be the best candidates from, what, 8,000 people ?
The actual selection was under Trumpskyy.
Re:Good moves (Score:4, Insightful)
This kind of hand-waving is not impressive. I can see why you were modded troll. Try answering jack's question.
I have a question too. What does it even mean to be the "best 4 candidates" from a pool of 8000 people for a job like this? I'm not convinced it's even possible to meaningfully define what "the best 4 people" even means.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a question too. What does it even mean to be the "best 4 candidates" from a pool of 8000 people for a job like this? I'm not convinced it's even possible to meaningfully define what "the best 4 people" even means.
I don't know either but I can tell you that these 4 will have these qualifications based on prior selections: 1) one or more advanced science degrees 2) peak physical fitness 3) some may have military backgrounds. As such, one or two will likely be pilots.
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t get worked up about DEI like the ot
Re: (Score:3)
Without seeing the DEI crew member's rankings, I cannot prove they did not rank highest.
So in other words, you don't have any specific criteria but you are absolutely sure you are right.
But the chances of Biden demanding a crew member with black skin and a crew member with a vagina and 2 of the highest ranking 5 people out of 8,000 just happening to be a person with black skin and a crew member with a vagina is very small.
3 of the 8 females are military pilots and an engineer at the same time. All of them have masters or better. But they must not be qualified according to criteria which you do not have.
Re: (Score:3)
Biden demanded sexist, racist, box-ticking tokens.
So refuse to list what is your exact complaint other than "Biden did this!!"
We got box-ticking tokens.
Again what is specifically disqualifying about the candidates. We are waiting.
If you honestly believe that those tokens got there on merit, you are stupid.
You are the one that is crying they did not get there on merit but refuse to actually detail what disqualifies them. You made that claim and now what others to disprove what you will not detail.
Else, you're a liar.
You made the assertion: Shifting the burden and calling me a liar when I will not entertain your logical fallacy does not help your case.
Re: (Score:2)
Else, you're a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
If you honestly cannot follow the argument, you are stupid.
Your entire argument is "BUT BIDEN DID IT!!" when asked for details about your exact complaint. You refuse to provide any more than that other to call others stupid.
Else, you're a liar.
So I'm stupid for asking you to provide clarification or I'm a liar for asking for clarification. Which is it?
Re: (Score:2)
I can see why you were modded troll.
And you are wrong. Anyone calling out the racist and sexist woke is modded down because moderation is broken.
You're saying that a structured process with a numerical ranking system can nevertheless be biased? I suppose so. Perhaps we should go outside the numerical rankings to ensure fairness.
I am sorry that you've been the victim of such unjustified discrimination. It must have been very hard growing up in a system that's against you.
I guess you're not a troll.
I can see that you are stupid
Oh wait, yes you are.
Re: (Score:2)
No, genius, I am pointing out the fact that moderators vote down factual statements or valid arguments that they disagree with as Troll, Flamebait, etc.
They are abusing the system to try and suppress facts and points of view contrary to their own.
So the mod system is broken and sensible people simply ignore it.
I guess t
Re: (Score:3)
I was just pointing out the audacity of complaining about "undeserved" troll mods while calling someone stupid in the very same message. You don't see how your behaviour is self-defeating? I'd best move on...
Re: (Score:3)
Got it, so which astronauts do you feel were not qualified for mission? You said pick a crew on merit implying some of crew lacks the merit.
Re: (Score:2)
That is disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok so since you're a fucking coward and yapping about vaginas I bet you mean Christina Koch and Victor Glover but you wont say because you are a fucking coward.
And they are unqualified since Koch only did 328 days on the ISS and has done 3 missions as a flight engineer and has been an astronaut since 2013. Glover meanwhile *only* an F18 pilot, a USAF test pilot, flew on the first Crew Dragon flight so you know, he only has hands on experience with spacecrat launching with crew the first time.
Like fuck off,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A simple "You're right" will suffice next time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh yes my pills that allow me to make an argument with specific facts instead of vague notions of being butt hurt because some podcasters told me I should be. Baaaaah you sheep.
Re: (Score:2)
I am saying, as any decent person does, that woke racism and sexism is an abomination that must be wiped out. Especially where it is most prevalent - government jobs.
So you are complaining about a perceived issue that might have not been the cause of these issues. Is that like me complaining that racism is the reason why I was never a professional basketball player. I mean I am very short, cannot shoot, cannot dribble, or pass well. But it must be racism, right?
Re: (Score:2)
It is me saying that any normal, decent person should agree that racism and sexism is wrong.
And it tells you all you need to know about the woke that they disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
It is me saying that any normal, decent person should agree that racism and sexism is wrong.
No. You said: "Now drop the DEI. Pick crews on merit." Specifically you accused NASA of racism and sexism but you won't provide any support of it.
And it tells you all you need to know about the woke that they disagree.
And it tells me that when asked about your specific complaints, you are too cowardly to back up your allegations. You will levy accusations all day long with no support and no evidence. This is who you are.
Re: (Score:2)
No, genius, Biden ordered black skin and a vagina and the crew contains black skin and a vagina. That is obviously not coincidence.
Again "BIDEN DID THIS" does not detail your actual complaint that the crew does not have merit.
It tells me that you are too fucking stupid to comprehend. Like the hateful woke everywhere. You support racism and sexism and ignore the evidence of it. This is who you are.
No I comprehend that you will never detail your actual complaint as you are too cowardly to do so. Probably because holding you responsible is something you cannot handle. That is who you are.
Re: (Score:2)
An idiot, this and that is who you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This and that is who you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are claiming that my complaint is "Biden did it" and that is all I have written.
It is impossible to argue with someone who is so stupid that that is all they have managed to get out of the posts above.
This is you and this and that is who you are.
Re: (Score:2)
It is impossible to argue with someone who is so stupid that that is all they have managed to get out of the posts above.
You are the one refusing to detail any more than what you have said. And then claiming everyone is stupid because you won't detail any more.
Let me explain slowly as you seem not to understand: Your entire point is these candidates were not selected on merit but on DEI because Biden had ADDITIONAL requirements for SOME of the candidates. That is all you have written. You refuse to write more. You seem not to understand that NASA didn't randomly pick a black man and a woman from the general public.
Your argum
Re: (Score:3)
Good, glad we could clear that up.
You still have yet to list your merit criteria.
. . and.it is a coincidence that, of many thousands of candidates, the top 5 on fair, non-DEI, merit just happened to include one of each of those.
So they DO meet the merit you won't list according to you. That means you were complaining to complain.
Your point is you don't understand NASA didn't randomly pick from thousands of people and land on someone who had merit right after Biden made his requirements. Astronaut selection takes years and was done in advance. Most if not all candidates were more than likely already astronauts. NASA didn't make a Craigslist posting or scour LinkedIn for a candidate.
I've got some bad news for you about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
No it seems you think the top 5 of thousands of candidates ranked on fair merit alone just happened to include two that tick the DEI boxes Biden demanded they tick.
Re: (Score:3)
No it seems you think the top 5 of thousands of candidates ranked on fair merit alone just happened to include two that tick the DEI boxes Biden demanded they tick.,
Again that is what YOU said. But you won't list why they do or do not meet YOUR merit requirements. You keep asking people to prove you wrong but someone won't list your criteria. Here's what I do know: Astronaut selection takes years. YEARS. If Biden wanted a black or female astronaut, the VERY FIRST thing NASA would do is look at EXISTING astronauts before looking at 5 thousand candidates.
Back in 2020 before Biden said anything about his criteria, NASA listed 18 possible candidates for the Artemis II mis [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Sheesh, the woke mind virus sure wipes out a lot of braincells.
So you ignored the part where NASA is selected a white man with no space experience as part of the four instead of another qualified black man or a woman. This is who you are.
Re:Good moves (Score:4, Insightful)
Racism and sexism existed before DEI. That was the reason of creating DEI in the first place.
Is it an imperfect solution ? Absolutely. Is it better than what was there before ? Absolutely.
Strait white males have been so used to being over-represented for so long that they feel under-represented when they are actually represented accurately.
Re: (Score:1)
DEI means no-one is being represented accurately, they are there to fill quotas.
How can any decent person be proud of getting a job that way ? "Oh, you're the black guy Biden demanded, oh, you must have the vagina that he told us we had to bring along". What a fucked-up way to go through life. What a fucked-up picture to present to the world.
Re:Good moves (Score:4, Informative)
How can any decent person be proud of getting a job that way ?
You have that backwards as usual, not surprising from a mentally challenged white supremacist, but I repeat myself. How can any decent person be proud of getting a job because other white people suppressed brown people for centuries? You didn't earn that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Good moves (Score:1)
Aww, poor baby is mad that people are awake to what a piece of shit he is. Waaaaaaaa
Re: (Score:1)
Also how is he being hateful?
Re: Good moves (Score:2)
The way DEI is supposed to work is as the secondary sort key AFTER merit. A total ordering on merit is usually impossible, so you first find the merit equivalence classes, and then within the groups that have equivalent merit, you ensure racial equity.
There may be some cases so specialized that a total ordering on merit only is feasible. But they are rare.
Re: (Score:2)
== You racially discriminate.
In this case they are not even trying to "ensure racial equity" - they are (were!) simply meeting Biden's demand for a vagina and black skin.
Re: (Score:1)
Biden's demand for a vagina and black skin
That's odd... Does his wife approve?
Re: Good moves (Score:3)
A uniform random selection should, on average, preserve these ratios. A given draw may not, but over many draws, they should come out.
If you detect after 100 draws that you have selected 99% ethnicity C, you have detected bias. The selection process is clearly not random. How can you fix this? One way is to require each draw t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good moves (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no over-representation of anybody when people are hired on merit.
But that's the whole point: People have never been hired on merit. Ever.
The procedure has always been the following: Collect all resumes, then throw away all the blacks, then all the women, then all foreign-sounding names. If you happen to know the candidates that are gay, throw those away as well. And then, choose among the remaining candidates based on merit. It's been like that literally for centuries.
And it infuriates me when people like you call other people "racist" while being themselves the most disgusting racist pigs possible.
Finally: Stop conflating DEI and woke. They're not the same thing. Although I could understand why you would want to conflate many concepts together to reduce their number to a level your limited brain capacity can understand.
And to whoever modded me troll: Fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
The most damning thing is that since scrapping DEI, the Trump administration has appointed a string of incompetents to key government roles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good moves (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Our planet should be stopping racism and sexism, not exporting it.
Re: (Score:3)
Humans are biased. People are going to inherently select someone that looks like them, all else being equal. If you can't acknowledge that, then that's probably why you spend so much time complaining about DEI.
I don't agree with quota hiring.. but if the people going to space are highly qualified to do so, how can y
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are biased. So you take sex and race out of the hiring process, not embed it to promote the hateful woke agenda.
> There's no single test (as far as I know) that selects the best astronaut.
From Reddit:
"Astronaut Selection Process Tips,
I'm a retired Air Force officer and have many friends who are astronau
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's of utmost importance to select the right crew that's not landing on the Moon.
Re: (Score:1)
Captain dipshit is the guy that fought to get Isaacman confirmed. Isaacman just made a very difficult decision, possibly saving NASA the tragedy of getting people killed by a premature landing mission. Last week, Isaacman took a very large and necessary shit on Boeing and Starliner as well, demonstrating a degree of candor rarely applied to the prerogatives of a major defense contractor.
Some chumplet will chime in that all this is happening for the benefit Musk and SpaceX. This will be despite the fac
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Musk's Starship has problems a-plenty too
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with your sig more than your post. If pain is failure leaving the body, why did I feel so good when my divorce went through?
Re: (Score:3)
If pain is failure leaving the body, why did I feel so good when my divorce went through?
Task failed successfully?
Re: (Score:2)
Musk's Starship has problems a-plenty too
Who claimed otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
It's so sad that we have to add the /sarcasm tag, since there are so many people who actually think that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's about as smart as a bag of hammers.