NASA is scaling back its Moon plans, and saying a 2026 human landing on the Moon is unfeasible. : futurology

[–] Lugh 63 points 7 months ago (1 children)

NASA really is stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to its lunar plans. Its SLS system is a disaster, but pork barrel politics means it can't ditch it. So it lives on, zombie-like, to suck the life and money out of better options.

Meanwhile, it's placed all its eggs in a SpaceX basket. That company is run by someone who routinely exaggerates timelines for delivery and fails to meet them. Guess what? It's happening again. A commenter on the OP article sums up what SpaceX has to do before humans can go back to the Moon.

Re-light Starship engines
Achieve stable orbit
Dock with another Starship
Transfer propellant
Use transferred propellant
Dock with Orion and/or Dragon
Design a life support system for a volume much larger than Dragon
Build life support system
Test life support
Achieve escape velocity for TLI
Demo propulsive landing on Luna
Demo takeoff from Luna after sitting idle
Dock with Gateway (?) up and down

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

That list is out of date, several of those items have already been accomplished.

[–] KingOfSleep@lemmy.ca 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Which ones?

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Re-light Starship engines, achieve stable orbit (they deliberately cut the engines just a few meters per second shy of it on IFT-3, there's no reason not to count it), and transfer propellant (one of IFT-3's test routines during its almost-orbit was transferring propellant between internal tanks).

[–] Player2@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Actually they did not succesfully relight the engines in space as planned, but they intentionally skipped the test due to vehicle conditions as opposed to it failing

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They relit the engines on the booster, which are the same engines. They've been relighting engines for a while now.

[–] Player2@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They attempted to relight the booster, but only 1 of the 13 engines they wanted on actually started (2 others almost started but immediately failed). Their hope was to demonstrate in-space relight of the second stage engines, which is obviously a crucial demonstration for HLS and eventually going to the moon, but they never went for it. So far they have never demonstrated Raptor start in a vacuum and microgravity, which is a significantly different challenge to firing on the ground or even during re-entry as was the case for the booster due to propellant slosh and ullage considerations. In fact, we have seen them struggle with these issues in the earlier Starship solo tests, where the engines upon relight would eat backfill helium and eventually switch over to an engine-rich cycle :D. I'm sure they will figure it out but in space Raptor relights are far from the 'same' as what they have already done.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

They shut down and relit many more engines during stage separation and the subsequent boostback burn. Here's where they relight the middle ring of Raptors.

I suppose if you want to add "in microgravity" to that list item, then yeah, they haven't done that part yet. The list item just said "Re-light Starship engines", which they have indeed done many times in many circumstances. Just not that particular one yet.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 0 points 7 months ago

Ah yes, now it's all feasible!

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The first two have been dine. But yeah, still a big list.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The first two have been dine.

Tonight, we dine in ~~hell~~ stable orbit.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

There was a propellant transfer done during IFT-3's flight between internal tanks, too.

The list's not as big as it seems, several items are very closely related (there's three separate items for "design, build, and test a life support system" for example).

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Is anybody surprised this is falling through? Did anybody actually think we were going to fucking land on the moon again that soon?

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Only took 8 years the first time, which was pioneering everything. (I don't recall when the new announcement was made and the timeline.)

But also most of us have absolutely no concept about such things.

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world -5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, most of us have a concept of those things. We also have a concept of how many times since then the government has said 'totally doing it again for reals this time you gusy! Just a few years1!'

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Most people do not have exposure to rocket ship construction. Building construction yes to a certain extent, they can see a building go up. Most don't watch a rocket ship being designed or manufactured.

The only conception, which I think is the one you are referring to, is that things often take longer than announced.

Those aren't the same things. Ciao.

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world -4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Wasn't really clear you were talking about that when you only talked about the timeframe it would take to get to space. It sounded like you were saying people don't know how long it took us to get to space last time.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is about the moon.

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Yep. what I meant. not sure why I said space. it was my turn to be unclear lol.

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Drumpf did.

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Only because he demanded it. Those of us actually working on it just had a bunch of extra work to do indulging his fantasy while simultaneously doing the actual work of reality.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's not all that surprising but it is still sad

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

not to me. I would like us to work on robotics to build stuff that could be used when we send people out again or mining and such. would love to have them work on a lunar space elevator to work out the tech.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I have to suspect a lunar orbiter would be more practical for lunar base building and fueling further missions than a lunar space elevator, wouldn't you need angular momentum from rotation to keep it rigid?

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

its not really about being a better option as much as to see how it would be and work on the technolgy involved in making it happen. with the lower gravity and lack of atmosphere it should theoretically be a best case scenario and can be done without any super materials.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

A Martian space elevator can be built with high tensile steel, and will be shorter than one on the moon. I like space elevators, but they work better on smaller bodies with higher rotation, i.e., low gravity and lower stationary orbits.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 2 points 7 months ago

yeah but the moon is close and makes a faster easier testbed. I would actually like to have it followed up by a martian one.

[–] Blackout@kbin.run 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

My moon landing is still set for 2026. Already scheduled the Uber. Anyone want me to bring them back a T-shirt

[–] badbrainstorm@lemmy.today 4 points 7 months ago

Ah, the Uber space Tesla option. Classy!

I'll take a whalers on the moon shirt if you make it to Luna Park

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Is that the "moon landing" organized by NASSA?

[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Weren't they talking about building a space station orbiting the moon? We've been to the moon. If we're not building a station there, let's move on to next steps. If we are building a station there, why not send equipment and robots down first to prep it while we figure out the logistics of doing something we did 55 years ago.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

Weren't they talking about building a space station orbiting the moon?

Yep, Lunar Gateway!

[–] DestroyerOfWorlds@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago

Uh guys, I would totally go. Just launch me up there, I'll figure it out on the way.

[–] blargerer@kbin.social 2 points 7 months ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU

[–] AtHeartEngineer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Hopefully by 2030

Futurology