How did I miss this?

https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/

I must have been hiding under a rock. How did NASA go from hiring our rides to the ISS out to going back to the moon? I hope this continues.

Space. If I was asked to go, their question would not come close to finishing.

"One way trip to Mar..." "Yes!"

Not sure how a Marine Machinist would be any worth in space though.

Yeah, they have been biding out things for that for a while yet.  Of course... government... they are being sued because they gave the lander contract to SpaceX (I mean, what have they ever done!?).  Hopefully someone doesn't cancel it, or chip it down to nothing.

When the head of that program at NASA (I think that's who it was) was asked why they are using mostly old technology (lots of shuttle stuff) for the mission rather then something a bit more up to date (like SpaceX).  Her response was "proven technology".  Yeah, my 58 Ghia is proven technology also, but it wouldn't be my choice to drive across the country.

Regarding Mars:  As Musk said "I want to die on Mars... just not on impact...."

In reply to aircooled :

That's the same thing that NASA has done since their inception I think.

aircooled said:

When the head of that program at NASA (I think that's who it was) was asked why they are using mostly old technology (lots of shuttle stuff) for the mission rather then something a bit more up to date (like SpaceX).  Her response was "proven technology".  Yeah, my 58 Ghia is proven technology also, but it wouldn't be my choice to drive across the country.

Fundamentally the answer to both questions is the same:  politics.

It's all shuttle-derived hardware because that keeps the contractors in business.  It was once observed that there was a Space Shuttle contractor or sub-contractor in every single Congressional district, and this was NOT a coincidence.  The push for Artemis came from a certain politician looking for a legacy, just look at the dates.  Announced at the beginning of one presidential term in 2017, scheduled for first landing just before a hoped-for second term would have ended in 2024.

In reply to aircooled :

Blue Origin sued because they lost the contract(s) but several rounds of court decisions have upheld the award to SpaceX.

bobzilla said:

https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/

I must have been hiding under a rock. How did NASA go from hiring our rides to the ISS out to going back to the moon? I hope this continues.

You've really been under a rock, because that pork was supposed to fly in 2017.

It's a bunch of old shuttle stuff re-tooled to be completely throw-away and if (and it's a biiiigggg if) the one built actually flies without going ka-blooey, there's only realistically 3 of them and the real ones do not match the stated goals. The Block 1 rockets are 5-segment shuttle SRB's and 4 old shuttle RS-25's mounted below a modified tank and doesn't even have an upper stage. They don't make enough thrust to actually do a manned moon landing and the Block 2 design still needs all-new SRB's, the exploration upper stage, and upgraded RS-25's to make enough thrust and none of those things have been built. The only major piece of hardware that was actually designed for SLS/Artemis (the Europa Clipper) has been moved to Falcon Heavy already and now half of the Artemis moon landing stuff is using Space-X stuff.

And bingo, delayed again. The RS25s TVC is what failed in the test fire and now it's failing again. For some reason I don't know, NASA switched the fuel used to gimbal the RS25s to hydrazine for the SLS, which is highly corrosive.

There's an issue with an SLS engine controller. This past weekend, rumors emerged about a problem with the controller for one of the four RS-25 engines that power the Space Launch System. NASA has not officially commented, but Aviation Week's Irene Klotz spoke with Aerojet's RS-25 program manager, Jeff Zotti. Troubleshooting the problem began on November 22, Aviation Week reported.

Schedule impacts yet to be determined ... If necessary, "replacing a line or a component … we're probably talking about multiple days. Replacing an engine, we're probably talking about multiple weeks," Zotti told the publication. "On top of that, we have to assess what that does and how that affects the vehicle and the integration activities that are going on," he added. All of that must be factored into a potential delay of the launch, presently scheduled for February 12. A summer launch for the SLS now seems far more likely than spring.

Tell Elon he can stake a claim on the moon and the human race will be living there in under 3 years.

preach (fs) said:

Space. If I was asked to go, their question would not come close to finishing.

"One way trip to Mar..." "Yes!"

Not sure how a Marine Machinist would be any worth in space though.

 

If my understanding is correct, the machist on a ship is the person that figures out how to fix anything with whatever they have on hand out in the middle of the ocean without the ability to run to the store or source a new tool. I can think of much worse people to have along on a trip through space. In fact, I'd insist on having one on my crew.

Pork in spaaace.

I remember hearing that the solid boosters on the shuttle were built in segments (requiring the infamous O-Rings that failed and killed the Challenger crew) so they could be transported by rail.  Basically, good engineering practices (FMEA, etc.) took a back seat to paying off politicians with contracts.