Going to the moon in 2024

[Justin]

Looks like NASA is leaning forward on this.

They've pushing for development of a lunar lander, and, frankly, Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin is probably the one to watch on this:

https://spacenews.com/nasa-seeks-a-r...-lunar-lander/

[Gman]

NASA has a vehicle from Project M (formerly Project Morpheus - vehicle came out of development from Armadillo Aerospace) that was intended to land on the moon.

[Justin]

Armadillo did some incredible work back in the day.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Or even the first post apparently.

I read the post which said you were disappointed in all the space dorks here. Being a self-ascribed "space dork", I replied I'm too busy working real space issues. Not sure what your issue is, most of the nonsense that I can see after quickly skimming through all the posts form the last 2 weeks seem to come from non-space dorks. I generally find space.com is the USA Today of space news. Occasionally some articles of interest but I can usually get those in more detail through other means. The National Space Society (previously the L5 Society and National Space Institute before they merged around 1987) has said for decades that we needed to drop launch costs from $5k/lb to $500/lb or less but that would be a game changer when it happened. So far, things seem to be holding to prediction.

[Irving]

I read the post which said you were disappointed in all the space dorks here. Being a self-ascribed "space dork", I replied I'm too busy working real space issues. Not sure what your issue is, most of the nonsense that I can see after quickly skimming through all the posts form the last 2 weeks seem to come from non-space dorks. I generally find space.com is the USA Today of space news. Occasionally some articles of interest but I can usually get those in more detail through other means. The National Space Society (previously the L5 Society and National Space Institute before they merged around 1987) has said for decades that we needed to drop launch costs from $5k/lb to $500/lb or less but that would be a game changer when it happened. So far, things seem to be holding to prediction.

When you used the word "pundit" it made it seem like I was trying to post something political, which I wasn't. Maybe that guy is an elected official and it makes sense. I don't know. My jab at the space dorks was just that, a jab, since I was honestly surprised that no one had posted yet. I'm glad you came to the thread since you have actual info to share.

[Aloha_Shooter]

So here's my take on returning to the Moon. YEah, we've been there but we've examined less than 5% (and I want to say it's less than 1%) of the samples the astronauts brought back but still pulled out amazing discoveries about the origin of the Solar System and composition of the universe. We gained back over $7 in productive contributions to technology and capabilities for every $1 spent on Apollo. Like your cordless power tools? Thank Apollo. Like your Tesla or Volt or Prius? Thank the space program. Like the firefighting and life support equipment available now like heat-resistant blankets and lightweight breathing systems? Thank the space program.

All told we sent 12 men to spend less than 155 hours on the surface of the moon, about 80 total hours of EVA. Just think of what we would get in terms of technology affecting life support, remote medical care, communications, remote operations, recyclable materials, etc. from having a permanent presence on the moon. We should have had that permanent presence in the 1980s, mid 1990s at the outside. That we didn't is directly attributable to Democrat social programs and Richard Nixon. During the Reagan-Mondale election, I told my Democrat classmates that if Mondale had his way, the Challenger astronauts would still be alive because Mondale would have killed the space program before Apollo 11 ever launched in order to spend the money on useless and never-ending social programs. (I love the HBO mini-series "From the Earth to the Moon"; there's a really great scene where Mondale is about to launch his attacks o NASA at a Congressional hearing on the Apollo 1 fire and gets cut off by the committee chair who then gives Frank Borman the opportunity to offer his opinion:


Why not go straight to Mars? Because it's still exploration. When (not if) something goes wrong, Mars is months away needing very special transportation equipment and special training. When something goes wrong on the Moon, it's 3.5 days away, reachable (more or less) by rockets already in Chinese and American inventory. On Apollo 11, Armstrong and Aldrin were limited to mere hours of EVA by foot. By the time of Apollo 17, we had many hours more EVA time available, a lunar rover that dramatically extended the range Cernan and Schmitt could explore, and vastly improved photographic and scientific equipment. Just think of what we could have had with 5, 10, 20 more years of missions and accompanying technology development. The pace of technology development for Apollo equalled (if not exceeded) that of any war in our history -- and the challenges of war or exploration always spur the greatest technological development.

We will continue to learn about the mission as we carry it out so let's just get to the Moon in a safe repeatable way and establish a permanent continuous mission then upgrade the equipment along the way. The space program has given us microelectronics, battery technology, remote operations, life support equipment, fire prevention equipment, etc. The Internet since the dot bomb implosion has given us ... Facebook and Twitter. (Okay, I exaggerate a little but really, our current technologies are the intellectual equivalent of Rome's bread and circuses and silicon-aided masturbation.)

[Gman]

The Internet since the dot bomb implosion has given us ... Facebook and Twitter. (Okay, I exaggerate a little but really, our current technologies are the intellectual equivalent of Rome's bread and circuses and silicon-aided masturbation.)

https://despair.com/products/social-media

[Justin]

https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-co...s-on-the-moon/

NASA awards contracts to three companies to land payloads on the moon
by Jeff Foust — May 31, 2019

WASHINGTON — NASA announced May 31 the award of more than $250 million in contracts to three companies to deliver NASA payloads to the lunar surface by 2021.

The agency said it awarded contracts to Astrobotic, Intuitive Machines and OrbitBeyond to carry up to 23 payloads to the moon on three commercial lunar lander missions scheduled for launch between September 2020 and July 2021. The three companies were selected for these task orders from the nine companies that received Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) awards in November 2018.

“Today, NASA becomes a customer of commercial partners who will deliver our science instruments and our lunar technology to the surface of the moon,” NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said in a recorded statement during an agency webcast about the announcement.

[Justin]

https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-pe...lander-engine/

Looks like Blue Origin has conducted a successful test firing of the engines they plan to use on their lunar lander.

Glad to see things moving forward.

WASHINGTON — Blue Origin has performed the first hotfire test of the engine it plans to use on its Blue Moon lunar lander.

Company founder Jeff Bezos tweeted June 19 that the test of the BE-7 engine took place the previous day at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. The 35-second test went as expected, he said. “Data looks great and hardware is in perfect condition,” he wrote in the post, which included a video of the test.

[Justin]

Things are hopping (HAHAHAHA) down in Boca Chica. There's been some testing activity today on the monster (non orbital) Starship Hopper testing rocket that SpaceX has been developing.