Sammi13h ago

I feel I need to say something about Artemis as a former NASA employee, Space scientist and engineer.

I hope more than anything that the astronauts get back safely. But let us not be fooled by what this is.

Is it spectacular, yes. Is it a feat of engineering, yes. Does it make any advance in science, no. Does it help mankind explore the universe, dubious at best.

Why exactly are we sending humans to the moon? With our technology we will never send humans much further than Mars. The only way humans can possibly go further is through a scientific breakthrough. Good luck with that when Trump is gutting science.

Human exploration needs money spent on long-term advances - not using the same technology to do what we did before, however, glamorous it is.

So why do this and why do it now? Political theatre, a win for a Trump led NASA if it succeeds.

So I hope all works well and all return safely. But let us be clear what this is and why it is being done.

This is my opinion, I do not represent anyone.

Show threadUrwumpe9h ago

@SamanthaJaneSmith I don't see it that gloomy. We are finally let humans travel beyond low Earth Orbit. Right now further than they could ever get from their destination by any means of transportation in the past 50 years. Been there, done that? Sure not.

Also, we won't develop any better spacecraft by sitting around on Earth. Or by just doing in space what we have always done. Even known technologies on the surface will likely not behave the same in space. For getting further, we must go.

Show threadSammi9h ago

@urwumpe I hear this a lot. The issue is that to actually get anywhere you need to invest in science. This is the opposite of what is happening. Politicians want the glory but won't spend the cash on science to actually change anything.

This is particularly true of Trump cutting science. Even gutting NASA.

So I am afraid it is very gloomy IMHO. If you want to get anywhere beyond the moon and perhaps Mars you need new technology beyond chemical rockets.

Show threadUrwumpe

@SamanthaJaneSmith There is much more on this planet than a demented old pedophile. Sadly also many people who rather trust demented old pedophiles than science.

But should we stop doing science and have science be more successful than they are, just because they don't like what science says?

12:53pmWeb
Show threadSammi8h ago
@urwumpe That is my point. But science is being gutted by the US government, going to the moon is not science. At best it's rediscovery of the technology we used to have.
Show threadUrwumpe8h ago

@SamanthaJaneSmith which technology are we rediscovering? Did the Orion spacecraft fly in 1969? Did most people at NASA, that work on Artemis, already work on Apollo ? Or even one? Yes, the mission does superficially that Apollo 13 already did. But it does that with a new spacecraft on a new launcher with lots of new technologies, intentionally and planned, more safely than ever.

I am more angry for killing Gateway. That was a bad decision to please guys that badly need phallic spacecraft...

Show threadHoward Chu @ Symas7h ago

@urwumpe @SamanthaJaneSmith Indeed, it's not the same technology we had before, and most of that technology (like Saturn V) is lost and not reproducible anyway. This is still progress, even if you refuse to acknowledge it as such.

It will only be wasted effort if we stop here (again) instead of building on it further.

Show threadSammi6h ago

@hyc @urwumpe From the perspective of going anywhere else but the moon and perhaps Mars it is the same old rocket technology - throw mass from a chemical reaction out the back. A technology which will only get us so far.

Yeah we can mess around with the fuel combination, the pressure systems etc. etc. but no fiddling will get us any farther.

To get beyond requires a different technology and the issue is that this is not funded. Indeed, the present government in the US is gutting science and technology.

So I have no issue with progress but the present government have no wish to support the science required to make real progress.

So instead they spend money on doing "something" with no plan, while not funding the underlying technologies which could make a breakthrough.

Ask why.....

This is the issue.

Show threadUrwumpe6h ago

@SamanthaJaneSmith @hyc Its the technology we have, not the technology we dream of. When will it ever be enough? Should Magellan have waited until he can board a cruise ship? Should we stop manned spaceflight until we have Epstein* fusion drives to get us to Mars in 3 days? And if we have that, should we then wait until we solved the cosmic radiation challenge?

* Not the best choice of names by the Expanse team.

Show threadMarianne4h ago
@urwumpe @SamanthaJaneSmith @hyc not as bad as Discovery name-dropping fking Musk
Show threadHoward Chu @ Symas6h ago

@SamanthaJaneSmith @urwumpe yes, this lack of vision and funding is the issue. None of which is a reason to criticize the Artemis mission.

Back when I worked on the Space Shuttle at JPL it got a lot of criticism too, for being far less than what scientists hoped for. And yet a lot of important science was still accomplished with it. Despite budget cuts, headcount reductions, and the usual lack of govt commitment to supporting it. None of that was the Shuttle's fault either.