Artemis

[Anonymous No.12570420]

Be honest
By 2024, which one of these proposals is more likely to fail? And which one do you reckon will be used for cargo only and not crew transportation?

[Anonymous No.12570432]

>>12570420
Artemis will get pushed back and back SLS style. China will have Moon base first.

[Anonymous No.12570447]

>>12570432
This. Space exploration is always pushed back, because nobody in the government cares how inspiring it is. Nor do they want to admit their energy crisis could be solved by mining for Helium 3.

[Anonymous No.12570491]

>>12570420
>which one of these proposals is more likely to fail?
Purely within Artemis? SpaceX for being "too ambitious" and not falling in line with the intentionally slow process that NASA has to go with. Outside of Artemis? National Team because their whole project is based on the hopes of Artemis picking them

[Anonymous No.12570509]

>>12570447
That's real? I thought Moon (2009) made it up

[Anonymous No.12570510]

>>12570432
SpaceX is more likely to beat both NASA and China to the moon with a manned vehicle. Artemis-1 (which has to launch within 12 months because they started to assemble the SRBs and they expire) doesn't exactly count because it's a test flight.

[Anonymous No.12570545]

Joe Biden does not care about space, only women and trannies, so it will all be scrapped.

[Anonymous No.12570554]

>>12570420
I'd repost my evidence against Dynetics having much probability of succeeding but it's gotten me the banhammer twice in the past. I'll just say they're very distracted with things unrelated the science, engineering, or even defense.

[Anonymous No.12570566]

>>12570447
Trump cared about returning to the Moon permanently but he's about to be gone so that opportunity is now lost.

[Anonymous No.12570574]

>>12570509
It's conjecture but is worth exploring given its potential positive outcome.

[Anonymous No.12570598]

>>12570574
Only when you have a working fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumes, which is at least another century off.

[Anonymous No.12570619]

>>12570598
A known large reserve of Helium 3 that can be extracted relatively easily (big emphasis on relatively) would make increased investment into fusion R&D easier to justify. But we really don't know how large of a supply the Moon has or what would be the cost to extract it. We can hope the supply is large and the difficulty to extract low. At this time we simply do not know.

[Anonymous No.12570857]

>>12570432
this

[Anonymous No.12570921]

>>12570420
National Team will win the contract, but Lunar Starship will land there years before them anyway.

[Anonymous No.12571137]

>>12570432
Chinas experience in orbital space os 7 crewed shenzou missions and two single can stations that were probably based on soviet tks modules. They are way behond the west and have a long way to go.

[Anonymous No.12571421]

Democrats don't give a shit about space anymore. Space X will reach the Moon themselves. Space X Starship for spaceship, Lunar descent and Lunar base. Musk should buy an Alpaca from Dynetics for Lunar ascent into Lunar orbit. Transfer to another Starship for the trip home. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Anonymous No.12571527]

>>12571421
The only Democrat I can think for since LBJ to give a crap about the space program was Bill Clinton and even that was just him deciding to fund the US section of ISS instead of the Texas Superconducting Super Collider. It just really isn't their thing.

[Anonymous No.12571540]

>>12570447
Perhaps because it is largely worthless and better done by robots anyway?

[Anonymous No.12571598]

>>12571527
>Texas Superconducting Super Collider
there's problem - they used the word super only twice
if the named it Super Texas Superduperconducting Ultra Collider, ISS would be toast

[Anonymous No.12571651]

>>12570420
Musk should just go to the moon alone

[Anonymous No.12571653]

>>12571540
Mars base is perfect for a pedo colony.

[Anonymous No.12571659]

>>12571653
>so senator how was the low gravity and hydroponic lettuce this time? You fly to mars every month
Lettuce... Hehe

[Anonymous No.12571768]

>>12571653
airlock is that way
no need to put on suit

[Anonymous No.12571926]

>>12570420
HLS is most likely to succeed since it's basically just a bigger Apollo LEM.
Starship is probably the least likely to succeed because it's so radically new and being so tall and heavy it might have a hard time landing on an unprepared surface.

SpaceX is the most likely to be the first to attempt a landing though.

[Anonymous No.12572190]

>>12570510
SpaceX needs taxpayer's money for Its projects, so if NASA doesn't finance them, the CCP will

[Anonymous No.12572194]

>>12571137
SpaceX has even less experience in manned flight yet everybody acts like they will be on Mars by 2030.

[Anonymous No.12572202]

>>12570420
Either the Integrated Lander Vehicle because they can't do anything on time or within budget or the Dynetics Human Landing System because they don't get enough funding.
I think Starship HLS will be built even without government support.

[Anonymous No.12572205]

>>12570545
How about the first woman on the moon thing NASA is pushing hard?

[Anonymous No.12572350]

>>12570545
This

[Anonymous No.12572354]

>>12572194
Because unlike everyone else they actually want to be on Mars.

And their enthusiasm and speed is very nice to see which explains why they are advancing so quickly.

[Anonymous No.12572361]

>>12570554
What is that evidence anon, I very much like Dynetics but rather than a lander, as a kind of outpost or mobile base, like in the series for all mankind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Kp01tzHZdc

[Anonymous No.12574445]

>>12570420
Dynetics looks like simplicity itself, but old tech and not scable. HLS looks like they glommed a bunch of shit together from 6 different props.
I'm more interested in the weight of Starship lander and the avg depth of moondust

[Anonymous No.12575395]

>>12572194
They will.

[Anonymous No.12575400]

>>12572205
NASA will put the first tranny in the Moon. You can quote me on this.

[Anonymous No.12575429]

>>12572194
SpaceX can fail 50 times and still have enough rockets and will to keep going. Before that a lander could fail maybe twice (including unrelated launch failures) before it got cancelled.

[Anonymous No.12575435]

>>12570420
Now to scale them properly and with costs.

[Anonymous No.12575440]

>>12572194
SpaceX is the only company in the last 10 years that has sent human to space.

[Anonymous No.12575442]

>>12575435
>claimed costs
ftfy, no doubt the lunar starship will be much more expensive. still cheaper than the govt alt which will always be 10x more.

[Anonymous No.12575450]

>>12575442
SpaceX estimates that the entire Starship dev program will cost anywhere from $2B (lowest) to $10B (highest) with $~4.5B as geometric mean.

[Anonymous No.12575462]

>>12575450
no doubt they are the best option, both for cost and quality but that is a low ball estimate range. calling it now.

[Anonymous No.12575477]

>>12575462
Falcon Heavy development cost SpaceX $500M. Falcon 9 v1 development cost was $300M. Falcon 1 development cost was $90M.

The entirety of SpaceX activity as a company since its foundation, r/d creation of Merlin engines, Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Cargo Dragon 1, Cargo Dragon 2, Crew Dragon, all the launches for those, all the 1000 starlink launch costs, employee pays, etc only amounts to less than $20B total.

In fact, Starship's $2B is their most expensive program to date.

[Anonymous No.12575485]

>>12575477
Oh and that $20B also includes Starship development cost as well.

[Anonymous No.12575544]

>>12570619
The helium 3 meme, an element many magnitudes harder to use for fusion than hydrogen already is

[Anonymous No.12575589]

>>12570420
Isn't Dynetics the book that Scientology is based on?

[Anonymous No.12575591]

>>12575589
No, thats dianetics

[Anonymous No.12575598]

>>12575544
And the technology being researched for fusion right now is not even capable to fuse helium 3. A complete new kind of reactor technology is needed for that. Considering how much we struggle to fuse hydrogen already, this wont happen for another century

[Anonymous No.12575600]

>>12575589
doesn't look like the dc10 l ron promised. hmm...
>l ron hubbard
>el ron
>elron
>elon
elon musk is l ron hubbard confirmed.

[Anonymous No.12575758]

>>12570420
i would say SpaceX, even if they have barely any experience with the moon
>>12572194
because they tried their best even if they fail, what has NASA achieved in 10 years? nothing.jpg
>>12575477
>all the launches for those, all the 1000 starlink launch costs, employee pays, etc only amounts to less than $20B total.
that's NASA budget for a year, can you believe that? bureaucracy kills us

[Anonymous No.12575806]

>>12572361
How does that hab handle 14 days of lunar night?

[Anonymous No.12577200]

>>12575758
>that's NASA budget for a year, can you believe that? bureaucracy kills us
fucking hell

americans voted for biden so that means they dont care about space, just like obama did with bush's program to go to the moon and install a base, artemis will be scrapped by bidenbro

money will be given to non whites, women and other social causes
the climate change hoax too probably (its just a money making machine, in fact the planet is getting greener)

[Anonymous No.12577294]

>>12577200
>money will be given to non whites, women and other social causes
It is already

[Anonymous No.12577325]

>>12575806
The mission won't be that long.
Longer missions will either require nuclear reactors or landing on a pole.

[Anonymous No.12577341]

>>12577200
>the climate change hoax too probably (its just a money making machine, in fact the planet is getting greener)
What about you take this bullshit out of /sci/? You're lowering quality of this board.

[Anonymous No.12577391]

>>12570420
>Blue Origin
lmoa

[Anonymous No.12577412]

>>12570420
SpaceX could have a human on the moon within a year if they really pushed for it. They already have orbital rockets and human certified pods. They could assemble a modular lunar transfer vessel with a handful of launches with their currently used rockets and put it into a lunar orbit with ease. The biggest issue would be getting a safe lunar lander and takeoff module.

But given the lethargic competition they can wait until 2028 and they'll still be the first to get there.

[Anonymous No.12577436]

>>12577412
This. Falcon heavy could do a lunar mission with ease. The issue is not to land in the moon and put another flag. The issue is to put enough material to have a sustainable moon base.

[Anonymous No.12577522]

>>12577436
I'm sure there's some lockdown lover that would do fine on the moon for a year given 200 kg of instant noodles, a water boiler and sufficient water to not have to make piss noodles. A netflix connection too.

They'd probably end up sending a separate rocket to nuke the degenerate extraterrestial outpost he creates but it's feasible.

[Anonymous No.12578686]

>>12577436
falcon heavy is not certified for crewed flight. yeah, they are falcons, which separately are, but not in the heavy configuration

[Anonymous No.12578757]

>>12578686
No, is not certified, it doesn`t mean, it can`t do it.
Imagine, not going to the Moon when you can, because you don`t have the right approved loicence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlw3S3v13TY

[Anonymous No.12578779]

>>12577200
Commercial Crew is was literally an Obama administration project. Why do you retards from /pol/ love bringing this shit here?

It's easy to find the % federal budget under each year and which administration, and they pretty much all have been fucking NASA since Nixon.

Take your meds, schizo.