NASA delays crewed Moon landing to 'no earlier than 2025'

Shawn Knight

Posts: 13,619   +139
Staff member
Why it matters: NASA has provided the first major update to its Artemis program under the Biden administration, and it’s not what most would consider good news. Fortunately, we still have another major milestone to look forward to next month with the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope.

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said returning to the Moon as quickly and safely as possible is an agency priority. “However, with the recent lawsuit and other factors, the first human landing under Artemis is likely no earlier than 2025,” he added.

NASA earlier this year awarded SpaceX a contract to develop a lunar lander for Artemis, the agency’s spaceflight program tasked with returning humans to the Moon. The selection didn’t sit well with rival Blue Origin, which decided to sue NASA over the decision.

A judge dismissed the lawsuit last week, but not before it put NASA nearly seven months behind schedule.

NASA also said the Trump Administration’s landing goal of 2024 was not technically feasible.

Artemis I is to be an uncrewed test of the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion spacecraft. Artemis II will follow as a crewed test flight around the Moon, taking humans farther into space than ever before – approximately 40,000 miles past the Moon. Artemis III is the crewed lunar landing mission referenced above.

In the interim, space enthusiasts have the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope to look forward to. The oft-delayed space observatory recently completed its trip from California to the Guiana Space Centre in French Guiana, and is scheduled for launch on December 18, 2021.

Image credit NASA, Pixabay

Permalink to story.

 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 5,467   +6,265
The moon landing is the only time in history where "technology" and our capabilities seemed to actually go backwards.

The writers and intellectuals of the 60's assumed we'd be on Mars by now.

Is it because NASA bought into Lockheed's wasteful Space Shuttle Program instead of focusing on rocket capsules?

Probably.
 

RudyBob

Posts: 314   +300
The moon landing is the only time in history where "technology" and our capabilities seemed to actually go backwards.

The writers and intellectuals of the 60's assumed we'd be on Mars by now.

Is it because NASA bought into Lockheed's wasteful Space Shuttle Program instead of focusing on rocket capsules?

Probably.
I won't argue about wasteful but I would like to know why it was, in your opinion. I don't have one about "waste"
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,752   +5,195
The moon landing is the only time in history where "technology" and our capabilities seemed to actually go backwards.

The writers and intellectuals of the 60's assumed we'd be on Mars by now.

Is it because NASA bought into Lockheed's wasteful Space Shuttle Program instead of focusing on rocket capsules?

Probably.
Probably? By all means, you are entitled to your opinion.

IMO, to think that when this was made in 1902 that humanity was anywhere near technologically advanced enough to actually make it happen is rather quaint. Even in the 1960's, the technology did not exist. Literally everything had to be invented as the program progressed, for the Apollo program. To get an idea of just how complex an "adventure" the moon landings were - borrow this title from the NYC Library system https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1203167/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 or buy it, and, absolutely, watch it. Did you know that approximately 500,000 people worked on the Apollo program?? That's not my definition of an easy endeavor for humanity.

Just because an "intellectual" can think of something does not mean that it is something that realistically can be done. Intellectuals can dream up all they want, but given what humanity is technologically capable of at the time that an intellectual had a dream is what determines whether or not it is a fantasy dream rather than a realistic dream for that era.

I tend to think of you as a person that can run around in most any store and say "I want this" "I want that" and chances are you can afford it. Yet, I think that gives you a skewed viewpoint. Probably - even you have limits to what you can afford and thus, what you can make happen.

As to your comments about the Space Shuttle being wasteful, as I see it, it was a learning experience that likely sparked the approach that Blue Origin/SpaceX are taking with their reusable vehicles. Also, a space plane is not out of the picture and, as time has gone on, given the development of more advanced materials, space planes become more and more realistic.

History is full of things that did not work out for humanity - lead drinking mugs and the EVs of the early 1900s - for example, because humanity was not technologically up to the task - yet. However, every "failure" has a lesson and learning lessons is, as I see it, an essential ingredient to progress.
We should be firing rockets to the moon and using the empty stages as airlocks and living quarters.
Ever heard of "Skylab"? Skylab is a "been there, done that" instance. I really hate to put it this way, but after watching "Moon Machines" (referenced above - really, it is an edifying experience - for me, it left me wondering how the Apollo program was ultimately successful - given the deaths of Grissom, Chaffee, and White and other extraordinary hurdles that needed to be overcome) come back and let us know how being an arm-chair rocket scientist is working out for you. Pushing the limits is far easier said than done - even for an agency like NASA or some other qualified entity.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 17,682   +6,463
We should be firing rockets to the moon and using the empty stages as airlocks and living quarters.
And exactly how many "construction workers", do you think we'd have to fire into orbit to do the conversions from 1st stage boosters", to "luxury space condo living"?

1: Strip out the engines.
2: weld in partitions fro crew and control quarters.
3: Fly in all the flight control and life support equipment
4: Install it all./
5: fly in a crew to man it.

Why, you could do that in your spare time, (on paper). 🤣
 

Xelions

Posts: 20   +19
In the 90s I followed the developments on the X-33. I genuinely thought that was gonna replace the shuttle. Over 20 years later we have many more materials and manufacturing techniques that give us an opportunity to develop different space vehicles and what are we doing - still using rockets..
 

Uncle Al

Posts: 8,364   +7,166
HEY! those space aliens on the dark side probably need more time to tidy everything up, getting ready for the new female austro-babe to shoe up. Got to make a good first impression!
 

captaincranky

Posts: 17,682   +6,463
In the 90s I followed the developments on the X-33. I genuinely thought that was gonna replace the shuttle. Over 20 years later we have many more materials and manufacturing techniques that give us an opportunity to develop different space vehicles and what are we doing - still using rockets..
Well uh, the reason we still "use rockets", is because, all rocket propellant strategies. are self oxidizing. Jet engines require air to be fed in to them to combust the fuel. I hate to be the bearers of bad news, but there is no air in space. Hence combustion can't occur, period.

Also, rocket engines have the highest thrust to weight ratio of any device ever conceived by man. And that kidz, is why we still use rockets to go into space.

Now which would you rather do, homework on mass. velocity, acceleration equations, or go back to playing with your X-Box?

.
 
Last edited: