|
A former supporter of SLS is withdrawing his support:
Long-time advocate of SLS rocket says it’s time to find an “off-ramp” - Ars Technica On Wednesday, one of the Republican space policy leaders most consistently opposed to commercial heavy lift rockets over the last decade—as an alternative to NASA's large SLS rocket—has changed his mind. "We need an off-ramp for reliance on the SLS," said Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, in written testimony. He issued the statement in advance of a hearing about US space policy, and the future of NASA's Artemis Moon program, before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. As part of his policy recommendations, Pace said NASA should seek to use commercial providers of heavy lift launch so that NASA can send "multiple" crew and cargo missions to the Moon each year. He notes that the SLS rocket is not reusable and is incapable of a high flight rate. "It has had one flight, but has trouble supporting one flight per year, much less congressional targets of two 'cores' per year," Pace said. |
More SLS issues:
New SLS booster design suffers anomaly during test - SpaceNews A new version of the solid rocket booster being developed for the Space Launch System experienced an anomaly during a test firing in Utah June 26. A little more than 100 seconds into the test, exhaust appeared from come out from the side of the nozzle. Seconds later, debris scattered from the vicinity of the nozzle, as seen in NASA’s webcast of the test. |
Hope he took a deep breath after getting this off his chest..... (Warning - it's not brief)
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2...aming-garbage/ NASA’s Orion Space Capsule Is Flaming Garbage For many years, readers have asked me a simple question: “Casey, why do you hate the SLS so much? Don’t you also hate Orion?” Yes, yes I do. But life is finite and my heart is mostly filled with love, and so I held off in the hope that either someone else would step forth and deliver a blistering tirade, or perhaps Orion would finally succumb to the magnitude of its contradictions and die a mostly peaceful death, unlike the astronauts who are fated to roll the dice in this thing this year. I mean next year. Well, at any rate probably before they die of natural causes in old age. Here is a brief summary of previous posts on the SLS+Orion program. Prior to this point I’ve reserved most of my critique for SLS. And for new readers of this blog, you’ll find that 98% of my writing is technical, positive, and I hope interesting. But someone has to write a pointed critique every now and then......... |
Good Lord,
I sincerely hope Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hanson, have read this. Or at least their wifes, husband resp. ! |
And here they go, in approximately two weeks, Artemis II.
By the way the crew congratulated Buzz Aldrin to his 96th birthday back a few days. I wonder how he is doing, those days. He should be invited to Houston, I hope? Or maybe all four of the still living Moonwalkers? https://www.bluewin.ch/en/news/moon-...y-3055562.html ...Before the start of the first manned moon mission by the US space agency Nasa in more than half a century, the "Artemis 2" crew wished the second man on the moon a happy 96th birthday on Tuesday. "Happy Birthday Buzz," said Nasa astronaut Reid Wiseman (50) at a press conference - on behalf of the entire "Artemis 2" crew, which also includes Nasa astronauts Christina Koch and Victor Glover as well as Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen. ... |
NASA:
Due to weather, we now plan to fuel our Artemis II Moon rocket on Monday, Feb. 2, at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. With this adjustment, the earliest possible launch date is Sunday, Feb. 8. A launch date will be set after teams have reviewed the results of the wet dress rehearsal. Read more: https://t.co/eNxx6YcGbv |
I was going for Feb 6th as this is when the back side of the moon is fully lit. No human has set eyes on this part as the Apollo missions were flown when the nearside was approaching full moon.
The 8th though should still be rather spectacular. NASA have my number should any of the crew fall ill. I'll even pay my own air fare to Florida and take my own food. |
Launch delayed till at least March, Artemis’s. Rolled back to the assembly building to investigate/repair a chronic hydrogen seal leak encountered during the dress rehearsal full fuelling.
|
Originally Posted by B Fraser
(Post 12029786)
I was going for Feb 6th as this is when the back side of the moon is fully lit. No human has set eyes on this part as the Apollo missions were flown when the nearside was approaching full moon.
. Due to visibility requirements (low sun angle with sun behind the lander) those Apollo missions targeted to the more easterly landing sites, that’s 11 and 17, landed when the Moon was a crescent, not even at First quarter, so those crews got a decent look at a strip of the far side, as indeed did the crews of the two rehearsal flights for 11- Apollos 8 and 10, since they flew with the same lighting conditions. It’s true through that there’s is a big chunk of the far side that man has never directly observed, and what the Artemis crew will get, because of the fly past distance is much greater than Apollo’s orbital height, is a better view of the far side hemisphere than any of those crews got. |
Here is how it should look like:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5536/ time compression factor 1min ~= 36 hours (first video, the second one below is better) |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 12031528)
Launch delayed till at least March, Artemis’s. Rolled back to the assembly building to investigate/repair a chronic hydrogen seal leak encountered during the dress rehearsal full fuelling.
|
I have the horrible premonition of an Apollo 1-like catastrophe developing. Artemis Safe to Fly? I sincerely hope I am mistaken.
We of a certain age remember Virgil "Gus" Grissom's concern over communications glitches in the capsule which had been built by a consortium comprising North American Aviation, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, and Grumman. He called it a lemon! Did too many cooks spoil the broth and kill 3 of America's top astronauts? Boeing's design and build-out of the Artemis capsule has run millions over budget and years late. Artemis 1 showed very concerning damage to its heat shield. Artemis II, if and when they get her off the ground, will follow a more shallow re-entry path to limit heating. Fingers crossed! - Ed |
Well at least, again, we have qualified experts (dependent) from the inside, who say: it is safe enough all-in-all. And we have qualified experts from the outside (more free in what thay can say publicly), with experience on the matter, but no deep access to the data - who say: too high of a risk, even for test pilots job holders. Was it not always like this?
For us here, well - each one is up to his own expertise and gut feelings. I am missing for my part some specifics of the slightly changed staged reentry sequence. If you make it "more shallow", according to my maths it means less delta-v loss the first dip into atmosphere, but more delta-v (energy) left for the second one. So what exactly are they planning for the second&final re-entry to reduce the max heat load and/or very high heat exposure duration? |
Originally Posted by cavuman1
(Post 12034992)
I have the horrible premonition of an Apollo 1-like catastrophe developing. .......We of a certain age remember Virgil "Gus" Grissom's concern over communications glitches in the capsule which had been built by a consortium comprising North American Aviation, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, and Grumman. He called it a lemon! Did too many cooks spoil the broth and kill 3 of America's top astronauts?
The flaw was pressurising the capsule with 100% O2 at ambient pressure. IIRC, the capsule would have a pure O2 atmosphere in flight however the pressure would be low to allow lightweight construction while delivering an acceptable partial pressure of O2 equal to that found at sea level. The ISS has a normal 14.7 psi mix of oxygen and nitrogen. I'm not sure about Artemis but would expect it to be the same. |
1. Ref the hydrogen problem (leak in the Tail mast quick disconnect area), TBF that’s not a problem confined to SLS, pumping LH2 is fraught with difficulty and it’s a problem of a type that has popped up regularly ever since hydrogen was used as a fuel… even on Apollo 11 a crew had out to the pad shortly before launch to torque up a few bolts to stop a leak in a pipe used to top H2 up in one of the tanks.
2. Atmosphere in Orion cabin : Hard to find a definitive answer but as I recall it with Orion it’s variable. AFAIK the idea is to launch with the cabin ventilated with air at 1 bar but certainly on missions where there is going to be an EVA (see edit) it would then gradually to morph to (?) About 2/3 of a bar but oxygen rich (30% 02). The thinking behind that is that is to reduce the time spent pre breathing with 02 prior to EVAs, where you need to be at low pressure but high 02 to keep the suits flexible. Pre- breathing pure O2 to get the N2 out of the body is needed to avoid decompression sickness and ISS experience has shown the pre-breathing times if you start from being in air at 1 bar can really really extend EVA prep time… (The above of course is one of several reasons why early US spacecraft went with 100% 02 low pressure in flight, the foul up was using 100% in the cabin on the pad at 1 bar) ETA: I missed a step…The EVAs of course will not be ex-Orion, they will be ex HLS on the Lunar surface…the thinking AFAIK and ATM is that HLS or the gateway (if ever built) will be low’ish pressure, O2 rich, cabins for the reason previously stated, so Orion will have to match that for docking. |
Originally Posted by cavuman1
(Post 12034992)
I have the horrible premonition of an Apollo 1-like catastrophe developing. Artemis Safe to Fly? I sincerely hope I am mistaken.
We of a certain age remember Virgil "Gus" Grissom's concern over communications glitches in the capsule which had been built by a consortium comprising North American Aviation, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, and Grumman. He called it a lemon! Did too many cooks spoil the broth and kill 3 of America's top astronauts? Boeing's design and build-out of the Artemis capsule has run millions over budget and years late. Artemis 1 showed very concerning damage to its heat shield. Artemis II, if and when they get her off the ground, will follow a more shallow re-entry path to limit heating. Fingers crossed! - Ed Not to presume your answer, but if you're referring to Boeing's difficulties with its Starliner Commercial Crew spacecraft . . . . the ISS is quite a different destination and mission compared to the lunar program, and not directly relevant. |
Yes, WillowRun 6-3, I am thinking of both the Starliner and the Orion spacecraft. Neither have lengthy proven histories and both have had demonstrable glitches. They do not approach Mr. Musk's Falcon/Dragon combination for flight frequency, safety, and reuseability. I understand your differentiation of destination, be it LEO, ISS, Moon, or Mars. All require a lot of thrust to get there, parachutes to return, and amazing engineering the whole way. I am concerned that the admixture of "Big Gummint" and Corporate Bureaucracy may be an equation which compromises safety. One need not look further than Challenger and Columbia to see my point, which I believe to be entirely relevant.
- Ed |
Originally Posted by cavuman1
(Post 12035463)
Yes, WillowRun 6-3, I am thinking of both the Starliner and the Orion spacecraft. Neither have lengthy proven histories and both have had demonstrable glitches. They do not approach Mr. Musk's Falcon/Dragon combination for flight frequency, safety, and reuseability. I understand your differentiation of destination, be it LEO, ISS, Moon, or Mars. All require a lot of thrust to get there, parachutes to return, and amazing engineering the whole way. I am concerned that the admixture of "Big Gummint" and Corporate Bureaucracy may be an equation which compromises safety. One need not look further than Challenger and Columbia to see my point, which I believe to be entirely relevant.
- Ed As to the technical matters with regard to the Orion heat shield, I did not save the citation to the article but only a few weeks ago I read an article which reported on the extensive discussions offered by two participants in the safety review, one an internal expert and the other essentially an outsider. At the risk of omitting something important from the article, the two participants discussed that the material of the heat shield had experienced outgassing, and the extent or duration (or both) of this process had not been completely anticipated by NASA or the manufacturer. Also iirc, the plan for Artemis II is to fly (as noted by others) a different re-entry trajectory rather than redesign the heat shield - although (again iirc) this is being done for Artemis III. Somewhat relatedly to all the above about Orion, it is fine to point out that it has no established track record, and then point to Dragon which does. But Dragon was able to build upon the successes of the human spaceflight program in a way that does not apply to deep space missions (isn't the velocity at which the lunar missions return to Earth much higher than deorbit from LEO? - and isn't the Orion spacecraft a much heavier spacecraft? - and a more complex one, given its deep space mission requirements?) ((And I don't have much to say about Starliner, other than NASA made the right decision not to risk bringing Butch and Sunni home in it.)) There is one other point about SpaceX flight hardware and its overall program that I believe is important to at least try to articulate. On one hand, starting with the troubled legacy of Dr. Von Braun through which the United States embarked on the technology and engineering initiative which culminated not only in the successful Apollo lunar landings but also in U.S. preeminence in space programs and technology, the United States space efforts have always been an expression of national will and purpose, decided upon and endorsed by the body politic. (That is, even though to imagine the Congress and successive White House administrations as "bodies", politic or otherwise, is more than slightly gross.) On the other hand, SpaceX carries the decisions and endorsement almost exclusively of only one individual person. No question, no dispute, that SpaceX's conquering of reusability of space launch vehicles is a testament to several things - to the free enterprise system, to the ingenuity and "it" factor of the individual whose vision became the reality, and to some extent, even to a modest flexibility of the NASA bureaucracy. But carrying the flag, being appointed as "the United States" in the space hardware domain, should require something more than success in efforts so far. And I'll give a timely and concrete example. The design of the HLS (Starship as a lunar landing spacecraft) requires orbital fuel depots and several transfers of cryogenic propellant. In the Apollo program (and Mercury and Gemini before) the engineering and technology risks were carried by the institutions and program elements across the country, in industry, government (not only NASA), academia. The story of how the LRV was designed and how that design was made to fit into the LM is a good example but far from the only one. Today, the big hurdle is cryogenic propellant management on orbit, in the depots and the transfers. Is this something that the United States national interest in space programs and technology should allow to be essentially contracted out? And in considering an answer, it might be useful also to consider, "Cryogenic propellant management in space: open challenges and perspectives", A. Simonini (et al.) npj microgravity (2024 10:34). (As a caveat to the foregoing, of course NASA is quite involved in the cryogenic propellant work being conducted by SpaceX. The difference is that if the legacy space model did not deliver the correct engineering and technology, by definition the voting public could exact political accountability. Though there could be something like accountability if and when the single most important engineering and technology risk is not addressed successfully by a private sector hardware provider, it would be significantly less than in the legacy model, if it even would be accountability at all.) Edit; how the LRV was designed and made to fit into LM. |
A very well-reasoned and objective response, WillowRun 6-3. I am in agreement. Surely within your attorney's breast there beats the heart of a human!
Highest Regards, Ed |
Originally Posted by cavuman1
(Post 12035849)
A very well-reasoned and objective response, WillowRun 6-3. I am in agreement. Surely within your attorney's breast there beats the heart of a human!
Highest Regards, Ed |
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 12035356)
AFAIK the idea is to launch with the cabin ventilated with air at 1 bar but certainly on missions where there is going to be an EVA (see edit) it would then gradually to morph to (?) About 2/3 of a bar but oxygen rich (30% 02).
The thinking behind that is that is to reduce the time spent pre breathing with 02 prior to EVAs, where you need to be at low pressure but high 02 to keep the suits flexible.. I think I read somewhere that there is one thing that you cannot do in a space suit............ whistle. At EVA pressure, there are insufficient O2 molecules for you to make that sound. I have no idea who discovered this or why they attemted to whistle in the first place. |
I'll be sure to check that out if I ever get the opportunity!
|
Sure, next time you are scheduled for that high altitude chamber experience :}.
|
YOU maybe cannot whistle in space, but can a whistle whistle?
|
Originally Posted by B Fraser
(Post 12035929)
I think I read somewhere that there is one thing that you cannot do in a space suit............ whistle.
At EVA pressure, there are insufficient O2 molecules for you to make that sound. I have no idea who discovered this or why they attemted to whistle in the first place. |
Originally Posted by Alverton Al
(Post 12036685)
In space no-one can hear you scream.
|
Are the astronauts brave or foolhardy and desperate at probably their only chance to ever fly into space?
NASA: “Update on our Moon mission: Following a Feb. 12 confidence test, teams are reviewing data and will examine findings before setting a timeline for the next test, a second Artemis wet dress rehearsal this month. March remains the earliest potential launch window. Read more: go.nasa.gov/4qACRDu Just to be clear here, NASA declared its recent test a "successful wet dress rehearsal" despite missing its T-30s target by almost five minutes, botching the dreaded Orion hatch close out procedure, and managing to achieve up to 16% H2 due to copious leakage at the fueling interface. For reference, the lower flammability limit, and system requirement, is just 4%, beyond which this nightmare fuel can burn and detonate in air. The "wet dress" was so successful, in fact, that they have to do it all over again in the unspecified near future. But before that, the same team ran a "(no) confidence test" on the leaky fueling interface which failed badly enough that they buried it until 8pm on the following Friday. The SLS ground support budget runs at $650m per year, and they've had 1173 days since the last test to get this right. Coincidentally it also took 1173 days for Hyman Rickover and his team to ship the world's first nuclear power reactor, wrapped in a fully functional submarine, for about a third of the total cost of the SLS's botched ground support equipment, in the 1950s. What a difference a serious team makes! Furthermore, we are assured that the engineering on SLS/Orion is so rigorous and the team is so elite that it's totally okay to test fly this turkey with four currently living astronauts on it, not to Low Earth Orbit like some kind of participation trophy Starliner repeat, but all the way around the Moon, on a completely unique, untested configuration. On the same week that a key SLS contractor's solid fueled booster rocket engine, launching a critical national security payload on a flagship national rocket, managed to explode, for the second time in three flights, for no apparent reason. I'm going to say it. What do @CAgovernor and @SenTedCruz have in common? They both want to be President and they both will apparently go to the hilt to defend the worst national flagship infrastructure contractors in the history of the entire world. Why are they determined to ally so overtly with such conspicuous losers? What can they possibly be getting from such a raw deal? How can they possibly be so desperate? We can choose to roll the dice with four lives on Artemis II. If they survive the launch, they can snap some really cool photos with their newly certified iPhones of the Moon shooting by out their window as they follow a trajectory that Apollo 13 took only under extreme duress. They can fulfill Artemis II's (I kid you not) "science objectives" by performing a visual inspection of the Moon that you can do yourself in the comfort of your own backyard with a $200 pair of binoculars. But when (not if) something goes horribly wrong, I do not want to hear "no-one could have seen this coming" or "we followed a rigorous flight rationale process" or "we checked all the boxes" or "this was the best we could do". At this point, the safest thing about the SLS and Orion is that they're so FUBARed that it might not even be possible to get them to T-0. Astronauts and taxpayers deserve far better. |
There is some (small) merit in that article however there are some almighty whoppers, especially regarding Apollo 13. The trajectory was flown in 1968 with Apollo 8 (Lovell, Anders, Bormann and I didn't need to open a book to recite that) and was always a pre-planned "get you home" option for all subsequent flights. The joke on Apollo 8 was that the capsule would perform a single partial orbit at a height of 60 miles (IIRC) on the far side however nobody knew if there was a 61 mile high mountain in the way. Artemis II will perform the same flight albeit some 4,000 miles above the far side surface which was planned to be in full sunlight given the original launch date. The CM pilots on the Apollo missions (Collins etc.) only saw parts of the far side as the near side was lit. The flight will be the first time human eyes have seen vast areas of the moon. You cannot do that from your back yard or perhaps the author lives next door to the JWST.
I included a slot on Artemis II on my last STEM talk. If you have a globe then find something that is the equivalent size of the western Sahara or 2,000 miles across. Then measure a length of cord some 9.6 times the circumference of the globe. Find a willing volunteer to extend the cord to the full length distance and place the moon sized object at that point. You will see the true extent of what is being flown. It's stunning. I would take that flight in a heartbeat and if Nasa are looking for a backup astronaut, they can call me. I suspect that I will be number 999,999 on a million long list. Those are four very fortunate people who will undergo a journey that the rest of mankind can only dream about. I suspect the author of the text in the last post is greener than Kermit the frog. |
I suspect the author of the text in the last post is greener than Kermit the frog. Casey Handmer is a seasoned founder and technologist based in Pasadena, CA, with nine years of experience building ambitious climate-tech and aerospace software platforms. As founder of Terraform Industries, he leads efforts to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it into synthetic natural gas using renewable hydrogen, with the goal of displacing drilled natural gas production by 2035. He blends deep hardware understanding with scalable software at the intersection of energy, AI, and Earth observation, and is actively hiring for hardware-focused roles to accelerate rapid scaling as solar costs fall. Previously, he was a Software System Architect at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, delivering GNSS-based radar software, synthetic lunar terrain models, and deep-learning enhancements for terrain and photogrammetry. Earlier in his career, he contributed to Hyperloop One as a Levitation Engineer and intern, filing multiple patents in magnetic systems and leading test optimization and vendor management. He earned a PhD in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics from Caltech, developing fast numerical methods for gravitational-wave energy flux and advancing computational relativity. |
Sounds like this chap has a pro SpaceX agenda. Ex NASA? Did he jump or was he pushed.
He also needs to brush up on his optics. . They can fulfill Artemis II's (I kid you not) "science objectives" by performing a visual inspection of the Moon that you can do yourself in the comfort of your own backyard with a $200 pair of binoculars. I'll take the rest of his comments with a pinch of salt |
China has already set up camp and claimed the other side of the Moon apparently.
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 12037097)
Not quite....
Terraform Industries’ Business Case Doesn’t Add Up — KlaasNotFound |
NASA have set a bit of a PR trap for themselves here and the author of that X has taken advantage… …much has been made by them in press releases of the Artemis II astronauts having the best view ever of the Lunar far side, and them taking images using camera phones, little to nothing about the other science being done.
That author is absolutely correct in stating that a high flyover over the Lunar far side adds little to zero to mankind’s scientific knowledge of that part of the Lunar surface from a visual imaging POV. Mapping of it at much higher resolution than a cameraphone can provide began with the pre-Apollo Lunar Orbiters, through Apollo and latterly with various unmanned missions….Artemis II won’t really add to that…. |
Just to add a point to "...with 200$ binoculars". Well, make it a telescope and 1000$ and it will do.
With my 8-inch telescope I can use magnifications up to 300x in good atmospheric conditions. You can treat the effect of "magnification" in two ways. The primary understanding is of course: it makes the moon 300x bigger than with MK.1. Or you can see it : it brings me 300x nearer to the moon, which makes out of 239.000mi a mere 796 miles. I can use an eyepiece giving me 120 degrees field of view, truly panoramic. (OK that is another 1000$) If the Artemis-II crew have no binoculars on board, I have a better resolution from my backyard. Of course I dont see the far side, but that's all whats left as a justification. LRO was mentioned? Good! But we shall treat it what it is, a test and systems qualification flight, with now humans on board. The science starts when boots on moon. I really have no expectations here now. I think if NASA uses "science" in their PR it is just out of bad habit (see self made PR trap). For Artemis-2 my doubts are only: one mission too early to be conducted with humans on board. And I would set one mission with humans on board in earth orbit for 10 days, with return capabilities within 90min of a severe problem set-on. And why in all hell with four astronauts? Even Boeing took just Butch and Suni on the Starliner inauguration flight and that turned out to be formidable decision. Space-X the same: Doug and Bob in the 4-seat Dragon. that said, I do have a bit of trust towards Jared Isaacman ! |
Wet Dress rehersal running now ... shall continue until Friday 20th Feb if all goes well.
https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/...ntdown-begins/ |
From X and elsewhere this AM (Friday) it looks like the Wet Dress Rehearsal went OK…
|
In the (now recorded) live stream they went until T minus 10 minutes and stopped there.
|
Not sure about the feeds but those watching/commentating live overnight say the count, via various holds, including a -10 minute one, got down to T-33 seconds before it's planned cutoff.
There was then a planned recycle back out to the T-10 minute point to give the team another run at a simulated terminal count from that point. All should be revealed by officials later but ATM and AFAIK it's being deemed succesful. |
No launch in March, April at the earliest.
Isaacman: After overnight data showed an interruption in helium flow in the SLS interim cryogenic propulsion stage, teams are troubleshooting and preparing for a likely rollback of Artemis II to the VAB at @NASAKennedy. This will almost assuredly impact the March launch window. @NASA will continue to provide updates as they become available. As an update to my earlier post. - The ICPS helium bottles are used to purge the engines, as well as for LH2 and LOX tank pressurization. The systems did work correctly during WDR1 and WDR2. - Last evening, the team was unable to get helium flow through the vehicle. This occurred during a routine operation to repressurize the system. - We observed a similar failure signature on Artemis I. - The Artemis II vehicle is in a safe configuration, using ground ECS purge for the engines versus the onboard helium supply. - Potential faults could include the final filter between the ground and flight vehicle, located on the umbilical, though this seems least likely based on the failure signature. It could also be a failed QD umbilical interface, where similar issues have been observed. It could also be a failed check valve onboard the vehicle, which would be consistent with Artemis I, though corrective actions were taken to minimize reoccurrence on Artemis II. Regardless of the potential fault, accessing and remediating any of these issues can only be performed in the VAB. As mentioned previously, we will begin preparations for rollback, and this will take the March launch window out of consideration. I understand people are disappointed by this development. That disappointment is felt most by the team at NASA, who have been working tirelessly to prepare for this great endeavor. During the 1960s, when NASA achieved what most thought was impossible, and what has never been repeated since, there were many setbacks. One historic example is that Neil Armstrong spent less than 11 hours in space on Gemini 8 before his mission ended prematurely due to a technical issue. A little over three years later, he became the first man to walk on the Moon. There are many differences between the 1960s and today, and expectations should rightfully be high after the time and expense invested in this program. I will say again, the President created Artemis as a program that will far surpass what America achieved during Apollo. We will return in the years ahead, we will build a Moon base, and undertake what should be continuous missions to and from the lunar environment. Where we begin with this architecture and flight rate is not where it will end. Please expect a more extensive briefing later this week as we outline the path forward, not just for Artemis II, but for subsequent missions, to ensure NASA meets the President’s vision to return to the Moon and, this time, to stay. |
The space industry seems to have an awful lot of problems with valves, cryogenic or otherwise.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:38. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.