Space Launch System - Orion
Discussion
I think there is far too much talk about perceived "risk aversion". The reason why Apollo was willing to take risks was because it was a programme run on a war footing. In this case, the war was The Cold War but as far as time pressures and budgets were concerned, it was very similar to the crash programmes insitigated in World War 2.
What is interesting is that one of the main reasons why the moon landings ended with Apollo 17 (and not Apollo 20 as originally intended) was that President Nixon did not want any Apollo astronauts killed on his watch. "Risk Aversion" was already built into Apollo - it just needed a couple of years to raise its head. Once the stated programme goal (landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth) had been achieved, the President was not terribly enthusiastic for NASA to keep pushing their luck. Apollo 13 showed how risky the whole project was.
Artemis/Orion has not been funded nor has it been placed under time pressures the way Apollo was. In fact, it has been a very low priority as far as Federal funding is concerned so has been hampered by lack of interest from those in charge of the funding coupled with vaccilation over what the programme aims are. Those are the real reasons why Artemis/Orion has moved so slowly.
If China anounced tomorrow that they were planning to land a human on the moon within 5 to 10 years - and demonstrated the mission architecture (i.e. they weren't just expressing a wish but showing how they intended to do it), I am sure the US would respond and funding for Artemis would become more of a priority.
What is interesting is that one of the main reasons why the moon landings ended with Apollo 17 (and not Apollo 20 as originally intended) was that President Nixon did not want any Apollo astronauts killed on his watch. "Risk Aversion" was already built into Apollo - it just needed a couple of years to raise its head. Once the stated programme goal (landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth) had been achieved, the President was not terribly enthusiastic for NASA to keep pushing their luck. Apollo 13 showed how risky the whole project was.
Artemis/Orion has not been funded nor has it been placed under time pressures the way Apollo was. In fact, it has been a very low priority as far as Federal funding is concerned so has been hampered by lack of interest from those in charge of the funding coupled with vaccilation over what the programme aims are. Those are the real reasons why Artemis/Orion has moved so slowly.
If China anounced tomorrow that they were planning to land a human on the moon within 5 to 10 years - and demonstrated the mission architecture (i.e. they weren't just expressing a wish but showing how they intended to do it), I am sure the US would respond and funding for Artemis would become more of a priority.
Robmarriott said:
Doing something dangerous in the 2020s is a lot different to doing something dangerous in the 1960s. It’s not as easy as sticking someone in a caravan and attaching it to some fireworks now, the 1960s risk level would be deemed way too high these days.
As we become ever more risk-averse, perhaps we shall do less and less, until the human race simply stays at home playing with smartphones. Perhaps in another 100 years there will be a brave new expedition planned - 'To The Outside'! (all records of anything more than 100 yards away being lost when the server crashed in 2026).Eric Mc said:
I think there is far too much talk about perceived "risk aversion". The reason why Apollo was willing to take risks was because it was a programme run on a war footing. In this case, the war was The Cold War but as far as time pressures and budgets were concerned, it was very similar to the crash programmes insitigated in World War 2.
What is interesting is that one of the main reasons why the moon landings ended with Apollo 17 (and not Apollo 20 as originally intended) was that President Nixon did not want any Apollo astronauts killed on his watch. "Risk Aversion" was already built into Apollo - it just needed a couple of years to raise its head. Once the stated programme goal (landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth) had been achieved, the President was not terribly enthusiastic for NASA to keep pushing their luck. Apollo 13 showed how risky the whole project was.
Artemis/Orion has not been funded nor has it been placed under time pressures the way Apollo was. In fact, it has been a very low priority as far as Federal funding is concerned so has been hampered by lack of interest from those in charge of the funding coupled with vaccilation over what the programme aims are. Those are the real reasons why Artemis/Orion has moved so slowly.
If China anounced tomorrow that they were planning to land a human on the moon within 5 to 10 years - and demonstrated the mission architecture (i.e. they weren't just expressing a wish but showing how they intended to do it), I am sure the US would respond and funding for Artemis would become more of a priority.
Regarding your last, I am not convinced! In the 60s there was paranoia and fear which lead to some silly ideas being considered as serious proposals ("Nuclear Missiles on the Moon"). I think these days if China said they were going to the Moon there would be a collective shrug and "let them have it". What is interesting is that one of the main reasons why the moon landings ended with Apollo 17 (and not Apollo 20 as originally intended) was that President Nixon did not want any Apollo astronauts killed on his watch. "Risk Aversion" was already built into Apollo - it just needed a couple of years to raise its head. Once the stated programme goal (landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth) had been achieved, the President was not terribly enthusiastic for NASA to keep pushing their luck. Apollo 13 showed how risky the whole project was.
Artemis/Orion has not been funded nor has it been placed under time pressures the way Apollo was. In fact, it has been a very low priority as far as Federal funding is concerned so has been hampered by lack of interest from those in charge of the funding coupled with vaccilation over what the programme aims are. Those are the real reasons why Artemis/Orion has moved so slowly.
If China anounced tomorrow that they were planning to land a human on the moon within 5 to 10 years - and demonstrated the mission architecture (i.e. they weren't just expressing a wish but showing how they intended to do it), I am sure the US would respond and funding for Artemis would become more of a priority.
Perhaps. The underlying difference between then and now was that the Cold War was in full swing and there was genuine concern about Communism becoming even more dominant than it appeared to be at that time. That view was held by most of the Western world but most acutely in the US. Apollo has always to be seen in that context.
We may not be close to where we were Cold War wise (epecially compared to the late 1950s early 1960s) but the geo-political landscape has changed quite a bit since the original Constellation programme was announced almost twenty years ago.
I think we are far more wary of China and its technological and global ambitions than we were even ten years ago.
We may not be close to where we were Cold War wise (epecially compared to the late 1950s early 1960s) but the geo-political landscape has changed quite a bit since the original Constellation programme was announced almost twenty years ago.
I think we are far more wary of China and its technological and global ambitions than we were even ten years ago.
Beati Dogu said:
Meanwhile, the build cost of the second, taller, SLS launch tower has risen to $2.7 Billion !!
As Eric Berger from Ars Technica points out, the tower will cost more than double the construction cost of the Burj Khalifa skyscraper in Dubai. Which by the way is 7 times taller.
Cost-plus contracts at their best. NASA let the contract to Bechtel 5 years ago for a projected cost under $400m... Now whilst this is a *mobile* launcher, that's still a huge overage.As Eric Berger from Ars Technica points out, the tower will cost more than double the construction cost of the Burj Khalifa skyscraper in Dubai. Which by the way is 7 times taller.
Eric Berger is saying it's 50 - 50 if SLS gets cancelled under the new US government. https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/18565228801437451...
Outgoing NASA administrator Bill Nelson says that the launch of Artemis II, the first crewed flight, is now targeted for April 2026. It had been intended to launch in September 2025 previously. It will follow a slightly different profile after issues with the Orion capsule’s heat shield came to light.
Artemis III which was meant to launch in September 2016 has been put back to mid-2027 now too.
It’s not looking good for this troubled system.
Artemis III which was meant to launch in September 2016 has been put back to mid-2027 now too.
It’s not looking good for this troubled system.
MartG said:
Beati Dogu said:
It’s not looking good for this troubled system.
Especially with Musk having bought TrumpAs a programme, what has it achieved so far. Nothing new or novel, no new science or mission goals as far as I can see, and the costs are frightening and only going higher.
Beati Dogu said:
Outgoing NASA administrator Bill Nelson says that the launch of Artemis II, the first crewed flight, is now targeted for April 2026. It had been intended to launch in September 2025 previously. It will follow a slightly different profile after issues with the Orion capsule’s heat shield came to light.
Artemis III which was meant to launch in September 2016 has been put back to mid-2027 now too.
It’s not looking good for this troubled system.
I think "slightly different profile" is a bit of an understatement :-)Artemis III which was meant to launch in September 2016 has been put back to mid-2027 now too.
It’s not looking good for this troubled system.
I do wonder about the change from skip entry to direct which would appear to be a case of "we can't fix the heat shield, so we'll change the flight".
Presumably there was a reason they chose the skip entry (anyone got a reference to why?).
I can't help but think that with the huge gaps between anything happening, knowledge gets lost. I fear tucked away somewhere may be a forgotten note along the lines of "parachutes can't handle the energy of a direct entry so skip entry needed".
Apollo used skip entry. It reduces the peak heat load on the heat shield and the G loads on the astronauts. Whether you use skip entry or direct entry is irrelevant regarding the popping of the parachutes as by that stage in the re-entry, whatever type of re-entry has been used, aerodynamic drag will have slowed the spacecraft down to a safe speed for (initially) drogue deployment followed by the parachutes.
Eric Mc said:
Apollo used skip entry. It reduces the peak heat load on the heat shield and the G loads on the astronauts. Whether you use skip entry or direct entry is irrelevant regarding the popping of the parachutes as by that stage in the re-entry, whatever type of re-entry has been used, aerodynamic drag will have slowed the spacecraft down to a safe speed for (initially) drogue deployment followed by the parachutes.
Interesting, I didn't know Apollo used skip entry. Makes it even odder that the Apollo-Style Avcoat didn't work with the skip entry approach. So do you think that this "skip entry didn't work, so lets just accept more heating and more g-load" is going to go okay (I take your point on the chutes)? Presumably they have done the calculations and think it will, but if the only other crewed moon missions didn't do direct entry then it perhaps suggests that another test flight might be a good idea ... Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff