Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And they still need to develop new landers and rovers! The lander part is no easy task. I think SpaceX or Blue Origin might beat NASA because of all the government mess and changing Presidents.
Im constantly hearing that old saying, that the cell phones we all carry are as powerful as the computers used in the first moon landing...well, Gee, I guess that really doesnt mean anything after all!!
The Artemis program was launched in 2017. For a 2024 lunar landing, that's a seven-year period. Modern airliners take longer to go from R&D to serving customers. Modern supercarriers take longer to go from ordering to commissioning.
Does it really need to be said that a lunar-capable spacecraft is more complicated than an airliner or an aircraft carrier?
And they still need to develop new landers and rovers! The lander part is no easy task. I think SpaceX or Blue Origin might beat NASA because of all the government mess and changing Presidents.
The turf wars between aerospace lobbyists are not exactly helping matters.
Boeing's lobbying arm is busily trying to kill of the Gateway lunar orbit facility in favor of the Upper Exploration stage. Why, you ask? Because the entire SLS boondoggle - including the upper stage - is primarily Boeing's, whereas other companies would be involved in building Gateway. And Boeing is not going to let anyone else get at that delicious pork if they can help it. This sort of infighting guarantees delays.
Boeing may or may not get us to the moon eventually, but it's getting obvious that it's completely secondary tpo them. They're building a rocket that's obsolete before having flown, and as far as I can tell, they're perfectly fine with that - as are their tame Congresspeople, who'd support going to the moon by wheelbarrow, as long as the wheelbarrow is built in their district. It's maddening.
Oh, and I should add that none of my ire is directed at the good people at Boeing who are actually building stuff.
In the meantime, SpaceX is building more modern rockets, launching like clockwork, and selling lifting capacity to whoever wants it - including NASA and the USAF.
Why does everyone ignore the elephant in the room?
The recent "UFO" videos captured by the Air Force pilots suggest we may have technology far above the rocket/jet level, so it would seem that the new space race to the Moon is just a diversion and a money-sink.
The turf wars between aerospace lobbyists are not exactly helping matters.
Boeing's lobbying arm is busily trying to kill of the Gateway lunar orbit facility in favor of the Upper Exploration stage. Why, you ask? Because the entire SLS boondoggle - including the upper stage - is primarily Boeing's, whereas other companies would be involved in building Gateway. And Boeing is not going to let anyone else get at that delicious pork if they can help it. This sort of infighting guarantees delays.
Boeing may or may not get us to the moon eventually, but it's getting obvious that it's completely secondary tpo them. They're building a rocket that's obsolete before having flown, and as far as I can tell, they're perfectly fine with that - as are their tame Congresspeople, who'd support going to the moon by wheelbarrow, as long as the wheelbarrow is built in their district. It's maddening.
Oh, and I should add that none of my ire is directed at the good people at Boeing who are actually building stuff.
In the meantime, SpaceX is building more modern rockets, launching like clockwork, and selling lifting capacity to whoever wants it - including NASA and the USAF.
That's a good description above. I think if you follow rocket news, watch rocket launches on tv/internet etc, people will see how organized SpaceX seems to be with things. They might reach the moon first.
Well, I expect the Apollo blueprints and specifications are still on file.
Told by a buddy (retired AF Major Gen'l) that all the material from the Apollo program was trashed. **** for the rocket parts, the whole shooting match.
Well, I expect the Apollo blueprints and specifications are still on file.
Well - the problem is, there's an entire supply chain you have to ramp up first.
Imagine the blueprints call for, say, a couple of hundred of the legendary hydraulic detachment manifold from OMB Demolition Enterprises. They were easily purchased off the shelf in 1961. But that factory has long since closed. You find the blueprints (the owner held on to them, what luck) and they in turn call for a dozen EAS-4 strut connectors per manifold, only they aren't made any more. Etc., etc., etc.
Why does everyone ignore the elephant in the room?
The recent "UFO" videos captured by the Air Force pilots suggest we may have technology far above the rocket/jet level, so it would seem that the new space race to the Moon is just a diversion and a money-sink.
I wouldnt be surprised at all if they had some kind of anti gravity or gravity control technology, they were toying around with it back in the 40s and 50s.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
