Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
NASA Moon Space

NASA Adopting Apollo's Urgency To Build a Moon Base, Land Astronauts Within Two Years (apnews.com) 89

Posted by BeauHD from the new-space-race dept.
NASA is accelerating its Artemis program with an Apollo-era sense of urgency, aiming to return astronauts to the lunar surface in 2028 and establish a permanent base near the moon's south pole. The Associated Press reports: Administrator Jared Isaacman said Friday that the space agency is still on track to launch Artemis III next summer on a docking exercise with Elon Musk's and Jeff Bezos' lunar landers. The two-week mission featuring four astronauts will be confined to orbit around Earth -- no moon trip this time. The all-important Artemis IV -- NASA's first moon landing by astronauts since Apollo -- remains scheduled for 2028, Isaacman said. His update came six months after the successful Artemis II flight around the moon by four astronauts, humanity's first lunar trip in more than half a century.

NASA will keep its options open as long as possible before choosing between SpaceX and Blue Origin for the Artemis IV lunar lander, according to officials. Isaacman said the "new space race" to land astronauts on the moon -- racing against China now versus the Soviet Union during the Apollo era -- will be "much closer than it ever needed to be" because of slow going in past years. But the space agency is now accelerating its pace, he noted, eliminating endless meetings and bureaucratic inertia, as SpaceX, Blue Origin and other companies scramble around the clock to meet the deadlines and NASA bolsters its workforce.

Adopting Apollo's urgent and intense approach from 1968 through 1972, a period which saw 24 astronauts fly to the moon and 12 land on it, is not "tech industry pixie dust or some new management philosophy," Isaacman said. "It's about our own history. It's a playbook this agency knows really well, the same playbook that went from Apollo 7 splashdown to Apollo 11 in just nine months," he said during a news conference at Kennedy Space Center.

NASA Adopting Apollo's Urgency To Build a Moon Base, Land Astronauts Within Two Years More | Reply

NASA Adopting Apollo's Urgency To Build a Moon Base, Land Astronauts Within Two Years

Comments Filter:

  • Safety first, urgency second (Score:3)

    by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Saturday October 24, 2026 @03:10AM (#66391206)
    Just remember, urgency is a secondary consideration, safety is the first consideration. That said, success to all involved!
    • Why? Safety means nothing if you lose the race!

    • They're really not mutually exclusive.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        They're really not mutually exclusive.

        How did I say they were? One being a first priority and the other a second priority is not mutually exclusive. :-)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Okay FP but you didn't get your Funny mod points. Maybe you confused the moderators when you mentioned success without success criteria?

      This is a government of politics first. Or maybe vengeance first? Or perhaps it's personal profits first? Or popularity in the latest poll? Whatever it is, safety is not on the main list of priorities. Plenty more volunteers eager to join up if the first ones die.

      But I thought the funniest posts were the ones that suggested the YOB would go. I couldn't buy the premise of th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        Okay FP but you didn't get your Funny mod points.

        The goal was not "funny". The goal was "learn from our past mistakes".

        This is a government of politics first.

        You realize the urgency over Apollo was political? Beat the communists, control the high ground, dual use technology for the military, avoid a technological gap with the communists, etc. Scientific exploration was just the sales pitch to the public. NONE of the preceding should be interpreted to mean that NASA is not absolutely devoted to the mission of scientific exploration. They are devoted to science and exploration. But when they are

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          I think you are quite confused about what "politics" means. Or maybe you are simply trying to use an extended definition? Easiest way to find out might be to ask where you think the lines are, but it seems obvious to me that your reasoning can be applied to make anything fit as a political problem. I could probably play the same game, though (judging by past posts) I seem to prefer economics as the catchall category.

          However your reply is sufficient to explain why you probably get few Funny mod points. What

          • I think you are quite confused about what "politics" means. Or maybe you are simply trying to use an extended definition?

            I think I am using a pretty standard definition, I have no arguments with the following:
            "A variety of methods are deployed in politics, which include promoting one's own political views among people, negotiation with other political subjects, making laws, and exercising internal and external force, including warfare against adversaries."
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

            Easiest way to find out might be to ask where you think the lines are, but it seems obvious to me that your reasoning can be applied to make anything fit as a political problem.

            Nope. That's just a common rationalization used by people who want to avoid inconvenient realities.

            However your reply is sufficient to explain why you probably get few Funny mod points.

            That's just another bad guess on your p

  • Better late than never, I suppose. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zmollusc ( 763634 ) on Saturday October 24, 2026 @03:27AM (#66391220)

    The urgency of the Apollo program was from much earlier, probably from its inception . The intense activity of the moon landings was enabled by the intense development program throughout the 1960s.

    • Sputnik scared the shit out of the Cold War strategists. Beep beep beep ... Ham operators all over America were able to tune in as it passed by again and again. So the government couldn't deny that the Soviets were in space.

    • The intense activity of the moon landings was also enabled by an absolutely humongous budget, up to 4.5% of the US Federal budget in 1966. Today, NASA's budget is at about 0.3% of the US Federal budget, and Artemis is sitting at around 10% of that.

  • Within two years (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Saturday October 24, 2026 @03:28AM (#66391222)

    NASA is accelerating its Artemis program with an Apollo-era sense of urgency, aiming to return astronauts to the lunar surface in 2028 and establish a permanent base near the moon's south pole.

    Sounds like Trump wants to put his name on something on the Moon ... /s

  • MAGA (Score:1, Insightful)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 )

    It's vital to get someone on the moon before the elections in 2028 so that we can elect another tribalist lunatic. We need people to say "hey we are on the moon, so who cares if we're enslaved by a bunch of billionaires and trillionaires, who cares if they're deporting our friends and neighbors, who cares if there are homeless and people living paycheck to paycheck?"

    • Yeah, and Trump is promising to wrap up the war immediately after the upcoming elections.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 )

        And pay everyone $5K! ... if his side, the side of fiscal responsibility*, wins.

        *hey I actually managed to type that with a straight face

    • We need to get to the moon before the Democrats put it in school and then trans it! Also there are illegal immigrants on the moon that need to be deported, Joe Biden put them there himself!

      Please one more time fall for the only two scaremongering issues we have left!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Assuming there are 2028 elections. Let's see how he reacts to the mid-terms.

      They probably have intel that China is making good progress on it's "before 2030" goal. They have all the parts needed either working or in late stages of development, and their plan is conservative and focused.

  • I've always been a big fan of space exploration, but for a country that can't afford its lifestyle a moon base doesn't sound very important priority.

    (Or maybe I should have said "isn't willing to pay for" its lifestyle.)

  • The Russians are getting there first? No wait it's the Chinsese - No wait Musl wants more corporate welfare from the taxpayers!

    • Can you imagine riding to the moon on a Russian spacecraft? Your blood pressure would be through the roof the entire time (and that's a best case scenario).

      • I don't think most people could accurately imagine the stress of rding to the moon on -any- spacecraft. Being strapped to 2.9 million kg of highly volatile fuel while confined to a tiny capsule and travelling 400,000 km through the vacuum of space is going to get to you no matter whose flag is painted on the side of your tin can.

  • Perhaps if they want an Apollo timeline, Congress should consider adopting an Apollo NASA budget.

    My fear is that they will.

    • I mean Republicans have always been MMT believers, debt don't matter. Remember boaters for Trump? Bring-On-Another-Trillion. I'll see myself out.

      • This is true. It's just frustrating that *serious* space program funding is only really mooted in the context of a manned program, usually in response to perceived threats, when unmanned missions are responsible for the vast majority of our current understanding of the solar system and beyond. The ISS gave us a great deal of that understanding, as well, though it also had just as much of a focus on observing the effects of space on the scientists as on the other work they performed. Despite that, even if we

        • Hey one thing I am excited about Starship getting developed is the ability to launch huge probes with more instruments and fuel on faster arrival times.

          Once it's a viable launch system I want a modern Pioneer type program, get orbiters around every planet in the solar system, get those Europa landers, get landers on Callisto and Triton too. We'll have access to more Delta-V than the scientists in the 60's could dream of.

  • With what Budget? (Score:5, Informative)

    by jaa101 ( 627731 ) on Saturday October 24, 2026 @04:38AM (#66391292)

    NASA's annual budget for most of the 1960s was over $60B, adjusted for inflation, whereas now its $20B. Also, the risk appetite now is much less and the current moon objectives are much more challenging. Partly this can be offset by better technology and past experience, but it still seems much too optimistic to me. Not to mention that Trump is about as far as you can get from Kennedy.

    • Not to mention that Trump is about as far as you can get from Kennedy.

      What do you mean? He seems hell-bent on having his name immediately above Kennedy's...

    • Not to mention that Trump is about as far as you can get from Kennedy.

      Well, is he going to Dallas any time soon?

    • > NASA's annual budget for most of the 1960s was over $60B, adjusted for inflation, whereas now its $20B.

      Do the full context math. In terms of government dollars per kilogram to orbit, by 2028 we’re potentially looking at a 20X improvement vs 1968 - potentially even 50X if Starship achieves high reusability. It’s already at least 5X with Falcon - or at least 10X if we use your (high) 60 billion per year number for 1968.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        NASA isn't using Starship or Falcon, they're using SLS. SLS is less efficient than the Saturn V in $/kg to lunar orbit and it's also only about 2/3 as capable.

        • No they don't, a special version of Starship (HLS) is targeted to put people on the moon. SLS might still be on the table if SpaceX and Blue Origin fall way back. But using SLS is REALLY expensive compared to using Starship/booster or New Glen/moonlander.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            Yes, they do. The HLS might take people from lunar orbit to the surface and back. They've still got to get to lunar orbit, and that uses an expensive SLS launch.

            Even using Starship, it's unclear how much it would cost to launch from Earth to the moon. A lot more than it would seem from the mass to LEO numbers for sure. A hell of a lot of refuelling launches are required, including refuelling in lunar orbit, which means those tankers need their own LEO refuelling.

            Likewise, the potential contract with Blue Or

            • Starship hls isn't using SLS, it will fly on its own to lunar orbit and to the surface (with refuelling in earths orbit before going to the moon).

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                It's amazing to me that with access to the world's knowledge people will just write shit, then, when corrected, insist on it, without bothering to check. Anonymity is a powerful thing I guess.

                Here, I copied the link to the Artemis program outline for you:

                https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in... [nasa.gov]

  • If NASA needs "Apollo -like urgency" I take it that China's space program is more advanced than we thought!!!
    • It is assumed that if China builds a long-term base, first, that it will exit the 1966 Space Treaty and demand partial ownership of the moon, similar to the segmenting of Antarctica.

      If the USA reaches the moon first, there is no evidence it will behave differently: Corporations exploring space, is likely to extend the US industrial-military fascism/complex into space, as well.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by angel'o'sphere ( 80593 )

      Most of the Chinese space program is completely public.

      For example the great retrograd cycle of half a dozen satellites around all Erath / Moon Lagrange points.

      Lunar lander on the back side of the moon, halo orbit around L2, Queqiaoâ(TM)s mission: https://www.astronomy.com/scie... [astronomy.com]

      Most satellites using laser based communication.

      You Americans are simply to silly to google what is going on in the world.

      Science wise: China is DEACADES ahead of USA.

      • OK, OK we'll let Xi know you're earning your paycheck today.

        The chinese space program is a fundamentally MILITARY program and thus its budgets, priorities, and developments are secret UNLESS there is deemed a value to public revelation.
        The Chinese routinely withhold basic data that is generally shared across space agencies globally such as expected precise trajectories of vehicles and discarded stages.

        Project 921, Shenlong, Or perhaps the 2007 ASAT test that was COMPLETELY unannounced and blew what, 3000+ o

        • Are you really THAT ignorant to think the US isn't using NASA for its space program? Almost weekly militairy sattellites are launched from US soil.

          • Why would they bother?

            Why bother using NASA a civilian, largely open space agency when they could use y'know, the actual, specific, designed-for-task military space agencies that were designed, structured, and staffed PRECISELY for secretive military projects? Like DARPA, the Space Force, or the Dept of Defense programs.

            I'm not saying the US doesn't have secret space launches, OBVIOUSLY they do.
            What I'm mocking is the absolutely ridiculous assertion that the Chinese program is "open" to any degree, except

            • Obviously the secret parts are secret.
              The rest is not.

              And you American morons: know nothing about the OPEN parts of the space program.

              Because if you knew - I gave several examples - you would simply be ashamed about yourselves.

              And that: is the American overlord not letting going to happen to its subjects.

              So: Chinese citizens are proud about their science and space program - and Americans are ashamed.

              No idea what your stupid rant is about.

              How many satellites does the US have around, at any Larange point?

              Oh t

        • No idea what your post is about.

          It has nothing to do with my post.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      China is a communist dictatorship and can therefore barely feed its people, only has technology it's stolen, and is therefore hopelessly behind.

      Also China is the greatest existential threat in the world and we must all spend 5% of our GDP on the military (I assume, because Russia is our friend now?), race them to the moon, and cease using all advanced Chinese technology immediately.

  • China! There needs to be a prod to get the US moving. Just as the Apollo Program was in response to Russia's space program, we now have a fire lit under us by China's space effort.

    The pieces are in place, so time to roll seriously. Artemis appears to have shaken down okay. Now it’s time to get the mating pieces put together and make certain they work.

    • The US is playing a completely different game than China. There is really no way to "win" whatever imaginary zero sum game that our politicians and populace thinks we should be playing.

      • The US is playing a completely different game than China. There is really no way to "win" whatever imaginary zero sum game that our politicians and populace thinks we should be playing.

        Okay - let's discuss. What game is China playing? Then what game is the US playing?

        Chang'e, the Chinese Lunar program is moving along recently landing at the lunar South Pole. They have a pretty well thought out mission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Present plans are to land people in 2030. Planned for 2035 is a moon base with nations China, Russia, South Africa, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Pakistan and Egypt as partners.

        This isn't the same game as the 1960's race, this one might have sovereig

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          IIUC, there isn't enough water on the moon to pay for using it as rocket fuel. There are doubts that there's enough to sustain a lunar colony. Better have a backup plan for extracting it from rocks. (This can be done, with many kinds of rock, but it's not cheap.)

          Of course, we don't really know what the subsurface is like. There could be lots of water. But that's not the way to bet. A better source is probably the asteroids beyond the frost line. That requires technology than we don't have yet, but pr

    • It would be nice that if instead of a full competition, space race, there was cooperative competition, similar to, but better than, the International Space Station. Plan the first lunar base together, but each country works on their own rockets, landers, etc. Share the cost, have a vested interest in making space accesible

      Bring India into the fold, as well as Japan, ESA, etc.

      Russia is excluded.

      • It would be nice that if instead of a full competition, space race, there was cooperative competition, similar to, but better than, the International Space Station. Plan the first lunar base together, but each country works on their own rockets, landers, etc. Share the cost, have a vested interest in making space accesible

        Bring India into the fold, as well as Japan, ESA, etc.

        Russia is excluded.

        I agree, it would be very nice.

  • Without that, its press releases.

  • I see this as a vanity project with little real value.

    The moon is stone dead, it is a very hostile environment, and it would be immensely expensive to build and populate a manned base there. I'm all for exploration, but that can be done at a fraction of the price with robots. There have been some recent failures even for achieving successful unmanned landings on the moon.

    Is there enough water ice at the lunar south pole to provide oxygen and hydrogen to make fuel at scale? How deep of a hole would you have

    • FOMO (Score:2)

      by kackle ( 910159 )
      Hear, hear, what's the point? There are reasons we haven't been excited to get back there in 50 years. So why are we excited now; am I missing something?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      Sorry, but the moon has LOTS of real value. The far side, e.g., is an ideal place to set up a large radio-telescope. It's got lots of useful materials for building things for local use. It's missing a few things that we need, like air and water, so that problem needs to be handled. But it's got a low enough gravity that a "lunar launcher" is actually practical...at least probably.

      Orbital velocity is "half-way to anywhere", but there isn't much there to build stuff out of.

      All that said, I'm not really co

    • There are 'easy' places to build a base at the equator, in partially collapsed lava tubes that provide free shielding you could build a city inside.

      There's a problem; the best science locations are at the southern pole. At the south pole you can build on the side of a crater rim and have permanent sun above the lip for solar power and heat, and permanent darkness below the rim for cold to keep your telescopes happy.

      You're probably digging through 8m of regolith to anchor your base and dealing with the risk

  • Obviously in 2026 most of the posts are going to be about how stupid Trump is just making meaningless goals for his own ego.

    To be clear, he absolutely is.

    Then again, I would point out that it seems pretty common that every president since the 1970s* has seen fit in the latter stages of their presidency to "talk big" on space commitments ... and then proceed to fund none of them.
    Until I actually SEE $50bn flowing into NASA or space investment, I take ANY presidential assertions about expanding space programs

  • 2 out of 3 is the time-tested adage for complex projects. Especially this crash program to Planet Trump, formally known as the moon. But the Orange One's fingers are all over it. So pick 1 out of 3 and it can't be safety.

  • I read that as "land asteroids in the next 2 years" and I was initially much more excited than the actual headline suggested I should be.

    Landing asteroids to mine would be much cooler than just a mere moon base.

  • No (Score:2)

    by whitroth ( 9367 )

    Yes, I want to get back to the Moon and *stay*. Sure, send me up there.

    But...two years. Before he's out.

    Fact: they pushed the launch of the Challanger, rather than wait, because Reagan wanted to talk about it in his State of the Union speech.

    The ashes of my late ex, an egnieer at the Cape for 17 years, are spinning...

Slashdot Top Deals

We are not a clone.

Close