Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 41 of 41

Thread: NASA's moon mission - ARTEMIS

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    42.798928,10.952804
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    Fun factoid: a company named Artemis recently sponsored Mark Beaumont world-recordsetting bicycle ride around the world in 80 days, a title from Jules Verne, who also wrote a little something about a moon landing once. Okay, maybe not that fun.
    i have full respect for him because he's going to travel by bike as long as he can (note that from china to australiahe's NOT cheating: he does not go "forward" toward east)... If I were him, i'd travel everywhere by plane (especially southern australia looks like a boring desert! - I can accept its hot dry climate but not biking uphill and downhill thru the hills! ) and i'd go by bike only for the last 5 km, with some teen babes (possibly exotic horny teen germans ) welcoming me at the ARRIVAL

    Last edited by Barabino; 2019-Aug-08 at 06:27 AM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,593

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,540
    "Trump’s 5-year moon landing plan has gone off the rails"

    https://qz.com/1690589/trumps-artemi...s-new-trouble/

    The idea was simple when vice president Mike Pence pitched it earlier this year: Let’s get astronauts back on the moon by 2024, not 2028 as had been NASA’s plan.

    To make this happen, the White House proposed a temporary increase of $1.6 billion this year to NASA’s budget, and something on the order of $20 to $30 billion in additional money over the next five.

    But the accelerated efforts are now stalled as Republican lawmakers fight over whose constituents will get the spoils of the lucrative program. Former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, is urging US president Donald Trump to skip all that and just hold a contest for space companies.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,540
    "NASA’s new HPE-built supercomputer will prepare for landing Artemis astronauts on the Moon".

    https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/22/na...s-on-the-moon/

    NASA and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) have teamed up to build a new supercomputer, which will serve NASA’s Ames Research Center in California and develop models and simulations of the landing process for Artemis Moon missions.

    The new supercomputer is called “Aitken,” named after American astronomer Robert Grant Aitken, and it can run simulations at up to 3.69 petaFLOPs of theoretical performance power. Aitken is custom-designed by HPE and NASA to work with the Ames modular data center, which is a project it undertook starting in 2017 to massively reduce the amount of water and energy used in cooling its supercomputing hardware.

    Aitken employs second-generation Intel Xeon processors, Mellanox InfiniBand high-speed networking, and has 221 TB of memory on board for storage. It’s the result of four years of collaboration between NASA and HPE, and it will model different methods of entry, descent and landing for Moon-destined Artemis spacecraft, running simulations to determine possible outcomes and help determine the best, safest approach.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,593

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,540
    "NASA refines plans for Artemis lunar lander"

    https://spacenews.com/nasa-refines-p...-lunar-lander/

    NASA has updated a draft solicitation for crewed lunar landers, adjusting details about how it plans to procure landers to meet the agency’s goal of landing humans on the moon by 2024.

    NASA published Aug. 30 a second draft of a broad agency announcement for what the agency calls the Human Landing System, which will be used to transport astronauts from the Gateway to the lunar surface and back as part of NASA’s overall Artemis program. The announcement, like the original draft published July 19, is part of NASA’s Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program.

    The revised draft maintains the basic outlines of the program, including NASA’s plans to acquire lunar lander services from companies, rather than the landers themselves. Selected companies would develop an initial version of the lander to support missions in 2024 and 2025, followed by a more advanced “sustainable” lander in 2026.

    The revised version instead incorporates smaller changes based on industry feedback to the initial draft. “We read and adjudicated and dispositioned all 850-something comments,” said Lisa Watson-Morgan, program manager for the Human Landing System at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, during a “virtual industry day” teleconference about the updated draft Sept. 3.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,593
    The Human Landing System
    file:///C:/Users/CLAYSAM/Downloads/Attachment_A12_HLS_DAC2_Architecture_Analyses_of_A lternatives_Public_082719.pdf

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,540
    "House members skeptical about NASA’s approach to returning humans to the moon"

    https://spacenews.com/house-members-...s-to-the-moon/

    Members of a House committee expressed skepticism about NASA’s reliance on commercial launch vehicles to carry out human lunar landings by 2024 rather than an upgraded version of the Space Launch System.

    The Sept. 18 hearing by the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee on NASA’s exploration programs left members of both parties with doubts that with NASA’s current approach, and the cost and schedule problems programs like the Space Launch System and Orion have suffered, it could achieve the goal of returning humans to the surface of the moon by 2024.

    The agency’s witness at the hearing, Ken Bowersox, the acting associate administrator for human exploration and operations, contributed to that skepticism. “How confident are you that we’ll have boots on the moon by 2024?” Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) asked him during the hearing.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,531
    I'm curious how skeptical they are about landing humans on the moon by 2024 without relying on commercial launch vehicles?
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    I'm curious how skeptical they are about landing humans on the moon by 2024 without relying on commercial launch vehicles?
    Good question. I'm much more doubtful about the SLS program than I am about most of the commercial programs.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,593
    Jim Hillhouse has some comments about that:
    https://www.americaspace.com/2019/09...es-2019-09-17/

    "SpaceX also claims that Falcon Heavy can deliver 16.5 tons (15MT) to the Moon, which makes the cost per kilogram $10K/kg. But this claim must be taken with some serious reservations."
    "Past experience with Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts has shown that initial pricing quotes on commercial resupply launches by SpaceX can in subsequent contracts grow substantially while claimed cargo to be launched might experience underperformance."
    "In truth, the marginal cost for a dedicated cargo SLS 1A, which could launch all three HLS elements together, as a government funded equipment (GFE) rocket is $450M, according to a cost estimate that NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Directorate (HEO) provided to NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) for the Europa Clipper launch. At the very least, SLS is price competitive with the Falcon Heavy."

    "Most importantly…
    SpaceX claims a FH can deliver 15MT at $150M, making the claimed cost per kg $10K/kg. What a deal!
    But the CRS numbers tell a far different story; that the likely cost for an FH expendable to launch 15MT is far, far higher. Based on CRS history, more like $1.2B (@$80K/kg) to $1.8B (@$120K/kg). And that’s just one FH lunar launch. And if 3 are needed?
    SpaceX would say that costs won’t be nearly so high in the case for lunar lander element launches. Well…ok.
    So, how do cargo prices drop to $10K/kg, a factor of 8 to 12, if delivering cargo on an expendable FH 390,000 kg to Gateway vs 300 km to ISS on a reusable F9/Dragon?
    This is why I wrote that an SLS is price competitive with a Falcon Heavy.
    If you have numbers that paint a better picture for SpaceX, I can talk to you on or off-line, whichever you prefer. "

    ************************************************** ************************************************** *********************

    Now, Starship Superheavy could change this--but for LH2 and NTR--SLS is the only game in town--for now.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •