Author Topic: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5  (Read 462145 times)

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12413
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 19472
  • Likes Given: 13592
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #800 on: 01/16/2024 10:27 am »
In moon race with China, U.S. setbacks test role of private firms
By Joey Roulette, Nivedita Bhattacharjee and Ryan Woo
January 12, 2024, 8:46 AM PST
https://www.reuters.com/science/moon-race-with-china-us-setbacks-test-role-private-firms-2024-01-12/

Quote
WASHINGTON, Jan 12 (Reuters) - Two U.S. setbacks this week in the race to the moon with China illustrate the risks of NASA's plans to bet on a new strategy of relying heavily on private companies.

Wrong take (in the Reuters article). CLPS and HLS are very different. CLPS is purposely high risks (shots on goals) but HLS isn't as it has to be safe for the astronauts. Besides the issues with Orion would have delayed Artemis III anyways.

Agreed. Definitely not one of Joey's better pieces.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9262
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10728
  • Likes Given: 12335
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #801 on: 01/16/2024 09:57 pm »
As it stands now, NASA has plans to use a cargo variant of HLS called HDL to deliver the pressurized rover and habitats to the Moon. It's not clear if NASA has plans for other cargo missions but perhaps that they should be looking at it if they want to stay on the lunar surface for periods that exceed 30 days.
NASA always has grand plans, but few of them ever get funded. The harsh reality is that NASA will be lucky to land two humans back on the Moon this decade and not leave anything behind except for some science equipment, so the visions of lunar bases is more in the realm of fantasy for NASA than reality at this point.

Also, the term "permanent" implies full-time occupation, like the permanent occupation of the ISS. Part-time outposts that are visited once per year for no more than 30 days don't really rise to the level of "permanent" outposts. If I have a cabin in the mountains that I visit a few weeks out of the year, but otherwise I'm living somewhere else, then I'm not living permanently in my cabin in the mountains, right? Same thing here.
I think that Musk was implying that enough cargo was delivered to the Moon, the lunar surface mission could last a lot more than 30 days and perhaps even the entire year.

I think it is safe to say that Elon Musk is not doing cargo planning for NASA... ;)

In other words, Musk was just being general when he made his comment, since SpaceX in general could certainly support a outpost on our Moon if they plan on being able to support the far more ambitious goal of supporting the colonization of Mars.

Quote
I admit that I don't know if that is realistic from a budgetary point of view or from a technical point of view.

OK. However, as planned, NASA won't be able to staff a permanent outpost on the Moon, and that is partly because of the limitations of the Orion spacecraft, and partly because the program hasn't really made a serious effort to plan for a permanent presence on the Moon.

Quote
...But perhaps that the cargo version of HLS-Starship changes all of that (I don't know).

Let's remember that the Starship HLS was never a consideration when the back-to-Moon effort was created. Everyone at NASA thought that some sort of upscaled Apollo lunar lander would be proposed by someone, and that would be how NASA would return to the Moon.

And in fact it was only because SpaceX had committed to colonizing Mars years before the Trump Administration announcement that NASA has a chance to land humans on the Moon this decade. No NASA built lander would have been ready in time, and the Blue Moon lander is unlikely to be ready this decade either.

So it was only after it became clear that what SpaceX proposed was possible that NASA started thinking maybe they could expand their effort somewhat, due to the tremendous amount of cargo the Starship HLS can carry. But I've seen little evidence that Congress truly supports funding NASA to occupy the Moon on a permanent basis. Congress is still just barely supporting the basic goals of the Artemis program.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1714
  • Likes Given: 6979
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #802 on: 01/17/2024 01:50 am »
We're 1/26th of the way through 2024 already, do we really think that for a 2026 Moon landing, that there will be a Starship carrying crew from NHRO to the surface and back? That's 2-3 years from now carrying NASA astronauts.

I have difficulty seeing it.     I hope Artemis can pull a crewed lunar landing by 2030.  This all makes what the Apollo program accomplished with a single Saturn-V launcher seem all the more impressive.  Artemis is limited by it's ability to get crew to and from Gateway/HLS with an sort of robust cadence.




Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12413
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 19472
  • Likes Given: 13592
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #803 on: 01/17/2024 11:19 am »
We're 1/26th of the way through 2024 already, do we really think that for a 2026 Moon landing, that there will be a Starship carrying crew from NHRO to the surface and back? That's 2-3 years from now carrying NASA astronauts.

I have difficulty seeing it.     I hope Artemis can pull a crewed lunar landing by 2030.  This all makes what the Apollo program accomplished with a single Saturn-V launcher seem all the more impressive.  Artemis is limited by it's ability to get crew to and from Gateway/HLS with an sort of robust cadence.

Emphasis mine.

Well, I sure as h*ll don't think so. IMO SpaceX and NASA can consider themselves lucky if they manage to pull off the uncrewed demo in 2027. IMO the crewed mission ain't happening until 2028, at the very earliest.
But I would love to be proven wrong. Trouble is that my trusted SpaceX sources (who correctly predicted FH maiden flight happening in early 2018, CCP Demo-2 flying in 2020, and made a bunch of other correct predictions) also predict "NET 2028" for the crewed demo.

So, by the time 2026 came and went I won't be disappointed if HLS Option A Crewed Demo didn't fly that year.
« Last Edit: 01/17/2024 11:25 am by woods170 »

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2380
  • Liked: 2687
  • Likes Given: 5169
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #804 on: 01/17/2024 01:13 pm »
We're 1/26th of the way through 2024 already, do we really think that for a 2026 Moon landing, that there will be a Starship carrying crew from NHRO to the surface and back? That's 2-3 years from now carrying NASA astronauts.

Good question. There's a poll for that.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15166
  • Enthusiast since the Redstone and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 13130
  • Likes Given: 10083
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #805 on: 01/17/2024 03:55 pm »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15166
  • Enthusiast since the Redstone and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 13130
  • Likes Given: 10083
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #806 on: 01/17/2024 04:15 pm »
https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/1747666933971825098

Quote
The alternative (shown in the picture) is pretty much Constellation but with SLS. Quite depressing compared to what Artemis is doing right now.

Quote
An interesting aspect of today's House hearing on Artemis was that one witness, former administrator Mike Griffin, said Artemis is the wrong way to return humans to the Moon and, in his prepared testimony, offered details on an alternative.

No one asked him any questions on it.
« Last Edit: 01/17/2024 04:16 pm by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline cplchanb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • Toronto
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #807 on: 01/17/2024 04:40 pm »
honestly the biggest mistake was throwing all their eggs into the space X basket. they knew going in that SS was unprecedented in scope and scale. SS is reliant to technology and procedures that have not been even invented yet which made the sole source award even more astounding. they budgeted for 2 landers so they shouldve awarded 2 landers at the same tender.

i have a feeling that they awarded the b contract to BO partly because they realised that they screwed up putting all their money to a concept that was pure paper at the time of award.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7432
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6041
  • Likes Given: 2528
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #808 on: 01/17/2024 04:53 pm »
honestly the biggest mistake was throwing all their eggs into the space X basket. they knew going in that SS was unprecedented in scope and scale. SS is reliant to technology and procedures that have not been even invented yet which made the sole source award even more astounding. they budgeted for 2 landers so they shouldve awarded 2 landers at the same tender.

i have a feeling that they awarded the b contract to BO partly because they realised that they screwed up putting all their money to a concept that was pure paper at the time of award.
I think you need to do a little research. The Wikipedia article might be a good place to start:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Landing_System
or you can try dredging for the info in various threads here.

Congress did not allocate enough money for 2 HLS awards. SpaceX bid $3B, BO bid $6B, and Dynetics bid $9B. NASA only had about $3B from congress, so they could only award one.

All three proposals were very ambitious, to the point where the SpaceX proposal was not really more aggressive than the other two.

Some influential members of Congress were very upset, because the money did not go to BO, so they then allocated more money and told NASA to award a second contract, which BO won for the lander for Artemis V.

Offline Negan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Southwest
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 557
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #809 on: 01/17/2024 08:55 pm »
We're 1/26th of the way through 2024 already, do we really think that for a 2026 Moon landing, that there will be a Starship carrying crew from NHRO to the surface and back? That's 2-3 years from now carrying NASA astronauts.

I have difficulty seeing it.     I hope Artemis can pull a crewed lunar landing by 2030.  This all makes what the Apollo program accomplished with a single Saturn-V launcher seem all the more impressive.  Artemis is limited by it's ability to get crew to and from Gateway/HLS with an sort of robust cadence.

Emphasis mine.

Well, I sure as h*ll don't think so. IMO SpaceX and NASA can consider themselves lucky if they manage to pull off the uncrewed demo in 2027. IMO the crewed mission ain't happening until 2028, at the very earliest.
But I would love to be proven wrong. Trouble is that my trusted SpaceX sources (who correctly predicted FH maiden flight happening in early 2018, CCP Demo-2 flying in 2020, and made a bunch of other correct predictions) also predict "NET 2028" for the crewed demo.

So, by the time 2026 came and went I won't be disappointed if HLS Option A Crewed Demo didn't fly that year.

Does it look like Artemis will be the first crewed flight of a Starship variant according to your sources?

Edit: Hopefully the answer is no. According the Selection Statement for Collaborations for Commercial Space Capabilities 2, SpaceX has plans to conduct crewed missions to LEO with an HLS-similar Starship within the next couple years.
« Last Edit: 01/18/2024 04:44 pm by Negan »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7387
  • Liked: 2894
  • Likes Given: 1503
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #810 on: 01/17/2024 09:55 pm »


I half-watched the hearing. From the title, I had hoped it meant Congress was beginning to take a hard look at what the taxpayers are getting for billion$ spent, but aside from Rep. Issa's questions and Griffin's criticism of the architecture, there was little of that.

The low point was when one representative (forget his name) mentioned the "dark side" of the moon.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9262
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10728
  • Likes Given: 12335
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #811 on: 01/17/2024 10:51 pm »
honestly the biggest mistake was throwing all their eggs into the space X basket. they knew going in that SS was unprecedented in scope and scale.

In addition to reading the 2021 HLS Source Selection Statement that explained why SpaceX was awarded the sole HLS contract, I think there are a couple of things you need to keep in mind:

1. SpaceX won their HLS contract in part because they already had years of development time on the generic Starship they needed in order to start colonizing Mars, and the Starship HLS version could be a close derivative. Neither Blue Origin or Dynetics had any hardware experience with spacecraft, whereas SpaceX had already developed their Dragon Cargo vehicle, and were in development of the Dragon Crew. SpaceX was clearly the best qualified of the three competitors.

2. When the back-to-Moon program was announced in 2017, and the goal of 2024 was announced, there were no NASA designs for a lunar lander, and Congress was not providing NASA with much of a budget for building one either. But consider that so far it has taken NASA more than 23 years to build a human-rated spacecraft (i.e. Orion), so it was very clear at the time that NASA would have a very hard time getting a lander developed before 2030, much less 2024. So again, SpaceX had already been developing the Starship for years by the time they won the HLS contract, so they were clearly further ahead than anyone else.

3. The Starship design is much closer to what NASA's Werner von Braun thought would be needed for space exploration, and what SpaceX is attempting is REQUIRED if we want to send more than four people into space once a year. So if you want NASA to do space exploration beyond LEO, then you should be rooting for the Starship HLS.

It is true that the Starship HLS likely won't support the original goal of landing humans on the Moon by the end of 2024, but the Orion spacecraft is actually the pacing item right now in returning to the Moon, and NASA has been developing that for over 20 years, so if anything you should be worried about NASA putting all their eggs into the Orion basket...  ;)

Also, even with Blue Origin now winning an HLS contract, and with a much better solution than what they first proposed, it is unlikely that Blue Origin will be able to get their lander human-certified and ready for a landing before 2030. It took SpaceX 10 years to get the Dragon Crew vehicle certified and operational, and they had the benefit of already having the Dragon Cargo vehicle in operation. Blue Origin is starting from scratch. That is why the SpaceX HLS is likely to be the first operational lunar lander, despite the challenges they have.
« Last Edit: 01/19/2024 04:03 pm by Coastal Ron »
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1714
  • Likes Given: 6979
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #812 on: 01/18/2024 02:09 am »
We're 1/26th of the way through 2024 already, do we really think that for a 2026 Moon landing, that there will be a Starship carrying crew from NHRO to the surface and back? That's 2-3 years from now carrying NASA astronauts.

Good question. There's a poll for that.
The poll function here is overused.  I prefer thought provoking discussion in a relevant Artemis section rather than the Poll Section. But hey, Diff'rent Strokes, right?
Paul

Offline DistantTemple

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
  • England
  • Liked: 1713
  • Likes Given: 2888
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #813 on: 01/18/2024 02:21 am »
honestly the biggest mistake was throwing all their eggs into the space X basket. they knew going in that SS was unprecedented in scope and scale. SS is reliant to technology and procedures that have not been even invented yet which made the sole source award even more astounding. they budgeted for 2 landers so they shouldve awarded 2 landers at the same tender.

i have a feeling that they awarded the b contract to BO partly because they realised that they screwed up putting all their money to a concept that was pure paper at the time of award.
My bold. If you remember back to the award of the lander, the government didn't budget for two systems. The budget was far too small, And that very miserliness seemed to be one key reason SpaceX was selected, as their fixed price bid was so (shockingly) low, and they (SX) had their own development program that was self funded. There was no money for a second contract. Secondly detailed analysis of each bid concluded that although having many new technologies, SpaceX had a greater probability of success.
Of course after Blue Origin's legal challenge (and government input) an on-ramp was created (with new funding required) "for them (BO)". So there ARE two contractors. I doubt BO could have accelerated their lander to be ready for the then required 2024 landing! Do you think otherwise?
Who and what and at what cost are you suggesting as a second contractor, to match SpaceX, who you so denigrate?

Hilariously other landers mockups have been just that whilst SX has been bending metal!
« Last Edit: 01/18/2024 02:34 am by DistantTemple »
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18242
  • Liked: 7861
  • Likes Given: 3300
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #814 on: 01/18/2024 02:26 am »


This issue keeps coming up but Catherine Koerner (at 48m of the video) made an interesting point on what happens if a provider like SpaceX doesn't meet its milestones. She said that NASA has reworked the contracts to incentivize the contractors to meet their deadlines. At 1h29m, she said that for certain milestones for certain types of contracts, there will sometimes be penalties for not meeting milestones. Sometimes a contractor will provide additional work in exchange for being late or not completely achieving a milestone. In other words, the milestones dates in the contract aren't notional.
« Last Edit: 01/18/2024 03:35 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18242
  • Liked: 7861
  • Likes Given: 3300
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #815 on: 01/18/2024 02:32 am »
honestly the biggest mistake was throwing all their eggs into the space X basket. they knew going in that SS was unprecedented in scope and scale. SS is reliant to technology and procedures that have not been even invented yet which made the sole source award even more astounding. they budgeted for 2 landers so they shouldve awarded 2 landers at the same tender.

i have a feeling that they awarded the b contract to BO partly because they realised that they screwed up putting all their money to a concept that was pure paper at the time of award.
My bold. If you remember back to the award of the lander, the government didn't budget for two systems. The budget was far too small, And that very miserliness seemed to be one key reason SpaceX was selected, as their fixed price quote was so (shockingly) low, and they (SX) had their own development program that was self funded. There was no money for a second contract. Secondly detailed analysis of each bid concluded that although having many new technologies, SpaceX had a greater probability of success.
Of course after Blue Origin's legal challenge (and government input) an on-ramp was created "for them (BO)". So there ARE two contractors. I doubt BO could have accelerated their lander to be ready for the then required 2024 landing! Do you think otherwise?
Who and what and at what cost are you suggesting as a second contractor, to match SpaceX, who you so denigrate?

If you read the selection statement for HLS option A, the lower price of SpaceX's proposal wasn't actually a key reason for its selection. The evaluations of the proposals weren't that close, SpaceX was much higher than the other proposals. Blue had a 2 person lander that was difficult to upgrade to 4 persons and Dynetics had a negative mass issue with its lander.
« Last Edit: 01/18/2024 02:34 am by yg1968 »

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9262
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10728
  • Likes Given: 12335
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #816 on: 01/18/2024 05:06 am »
{video removed}
This issue keeps coming up but Catherine Koerner (at 48m of the video) made an interesting point on what happens if a provider like SpaceX doesn't meet its milestones. She said that NASA has reworked the contracts to incentivize the contractors to meet their deadlines.

Right, she only mentioned "incentives" specifically in regard to SpaceX and Artemis III, not "penalties".

Quote
At 1h29m, she said that for certain milestones for certain types of contracts, there will sometimes be penalties for not meeting milestones. Sometimes a contractor will provide additional work in exchange for being late or not completely achieving a milestone. In other words, the milestones dates in the contract aren't notional.

I'll note that this is standard contract language for pretty much EVERY U.S. Government contract, so nothing special, and she made no mention about any specific contractor.

However, since you are bringing up the topic, please explain the penalties that Boeing received for not making any of their dates on the SLS, including the "end of 2016" Congressional requirement for having the SLS "operational".

Also, since NASA has stated that the Orion is the pacing item for the Artemis III mission slip, please explain what penalties Lockheed Martin has had to pay.

Because unless those contractors have been penalized for their schedule failures, what makes you think that NASA Administrator Nelson will authorize penalties against SpaceX?
« Last Edit: 01/18/2024 03:03 pm by Coastal Ron »
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18242
  • Liked: 7861
  • Likes Given: 3300
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #817 on: 01/18/2024 11:37 pm »
I'll note that this is standard contract language for pretty much EVERY U.S. Government contract, so nothing special, and she made no mention about any specific contractor.

However, since you are bringing up the topic, please explain the penalties that Boeing received for not making any of their dates on the SLS, including the "end of 2016" Congressional requirement for having the SLS "operational".

Also, since NASA has stated that the Orion is the pacing item for the Artemis III mission slip, please explain what penalties Lockheed Martin has had to pay.

Because unless those contractors have been penalized for their schedule failures, what makes you think that NASA Administrator Nelson will authorize penalties against SpaceX?

I doubt that the Administrator gets involved in that. But like I said before, it is interesting to note that the uncrewed HLS-Starship will now test ascent from the lunar surface. That wasn't the case before. Was that compensation for SpaceX being late? I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

One thing that I was wondering about is whether the incentives are on top of the $3B that SpaceX receives. Although the HLS contract is actually available, it is heavily redacted and the milestones are entirely redacted. So I don't know the answers to your questions. We only know what NASA discloses publicly (for HLS and SLS and Orion).
« Last Edit: 01/19/2024 04:28 pm by yg1968 »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7684
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2446
  • Likes Given: 2274
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #818 on: 01/18/2024 11:42 pm »
Who is covering the costs of disassembly/reassembly of the Orion for Artemis 2 to fix the ECLSS concern?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9262
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10728
  • Likes Given: 12335
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #819 on: 01/19/2024 04:20 pm »
I'll note that this is standard contract language for pretty much EVERY U.S. Government contract, so nothing special, and she made no mention about any specific contractor.

However, since you are bringing up the topic, please explain the penalties that Boeing received for not making any of their dates on the SLS, including the "end of 2016" Congressional requirement for having the SLS "operational".

Also, since NASA has stated that the Orion is the pacing item for the Artemis III mission slip, please explain what penalties Lockheed Martin has had to pay.

Because unless those contractors have been penalized for their schedule failures, what makes you think that NASA Administrator Nelson will authorize penalties against SpaceX?
I doubt that the Administrator gets involved in that.

You think it was left to a regular employee to decide if Boeing was to be punished for missing their Commercial Crew milestones? Even if that decision triggered Boeing to consider dropping out of the Commercial Crew program?

You can bet that NASA Administrators are involved when major contractors are going to be penalized for major amounts of money, especially since they will be the first person called by the contractor when they are notified of the penalty. The NASA Administrator is the person who makes "political" decisions that affect the potential success of major NASA programs - that is not left up to regular employees...  ;)

Quote
But like I said before, it is interesting to note that the uncrewed HLS-Starship will now test ascent from the lunar surface. That wasn't the case before. Was that compensation for SpaceX being late? I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

Or, the more simple answer could be that since the Artemis program was so ill-defined prior to contractor awards, that everyone is finally figuring out what the more optimal progressions of tasks and actions should be during the testing phase.

Quote
One thing that I was wondering about is whether the incentives are on top of the $3B that SpaceX receives. Although the HLS contract is actually available, it is heavily redacted and the milestones are entirely redacted. So I don't know the answers to your questions. We only knew what NASA discloses publicly (for HLS and SLS and Orion).

So I guess you are avoiding answering my question about why Boeing and Lockheed Martin can get away with major schedule slips without financial penalties, but NASA will instead be ready to jump on SpaceX if they don't meet the politically decided need dates of the Artemis program...  ::)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1