Well the fastest path is accelerating straight down but still...
Boeing's lunar lander pitch promises 'fastest path' to the moon
Boeing wants to make one of the Artemis program lunar landers that will take humans to the surface of the moon. The aerospace company has submitted a proposal to NASA for an integrated Human Lander System (HLS), which it says will be designed to reach the moon in the "fewest steps" possible. NASA has been accepting proposals from private space corporations and is expected to choose at least two of them by January next year for development. Blue Origin announced its own take on a lander called "Blue Moon" -- which it will develop in partnership with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Draper -- earlier this year.
NASA intends to send humans to the moon in an Orion capsule atop an SLS rocket. After the capsule docks with the Lunar Gateway, a space station the agency will place in the lunar orbit, the astronauts would transfer to a lander that would take them to the moon itself. Boeing says the HLS can either dock with the Gateway or dock directly with Orion to take astronauts straight to the lunar surface.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:01PM (5 children)
if you are trying to get there before the end of a second term.
But I'd bet against them having the fastest path to the moon unless commercial space really screws up.
So far, the opposite has been the case.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:25PM (2 children)
Of course Boeing will have the "fastest path to the moon", they'll cut corners, fit faulty parts, install components without acceptability testing to save time, implement improperly documented automated systems that seize control from the astronauts when they don't expect it, and self-certify with the FAA that everything is up to scratch. That's the new Boeing way, isn't it?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:34PM (1 child)
On the positive side, on the Moon, it doesn't really matter that their parachutes don't work.
(Score: 3, Informative) by driverless on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:04PM
Sure, but when the oxygen supply has a 25% failure rate [bbc.com] that's less good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:11PM (1 child)
National space programs landing on the moon (manned): 1969
Commercial space programs landing on the moon (manned):
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 08 2019, @03:50AM
Apollo Program: $153 billion (2018 dollars)
Businesses will send humans to the Moon when there's a good reason to. Probably on a Starship.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:27PM (7 children)
Somebody has to have the Saturn V lander drawings somewhere. Converting them to CAD is probably faster than designing new by an order of magnitude. Redesign only the electronic components, and chances are you have a pretty good system.
Of course that isn't the point. The point is to pay Boeing a bunch of money so they can kick it back into campaign donations. Citizens United v. FEC was a put on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @04:15PM (5 children)
Even if they still have the blueprints, they don't have the capability to build it anymore. All the nazi scientists and engineers have died of old age.
https://www.xkcd.com/984/ [xkcd.com]
Back in, I think it was the eighties, the head of NASA was in front of Congress.
Congresscritter asked him, "How long would it take to go back to the moon?"
He answered "Twenty years".
Congresscritter "What about with an unlimited budget?"
NasaHead "Still twenty years"
Congresscritter "But you did it in less than 10 in the sixties!"
NasaHead "Things are different now."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @04:51PM (3 children)
I'm sure plenty of the early V2s blew up. Many of the nazis started as amateurs in the 30s or perhaps even the 20s. They were coming to the program with decades of experience, and experience working on large rockets that nobody else had ever seen. The reason we can't move that fast today is motivation. We aren't in a race with the Reds, so nobody wants to throw gobs of money at it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 08 2019, @01:20AM
Well, that and reading comprehension.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @03:53AM (1 child)
NASA has spent something like 5 Apollo programs since the end of the Apollo program. It hasn't gotten us back to the Moon. Spending gobs of money isn't going to cut it.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 09 2019, @08:57AM
Some of it helps keep getting them to Hawaii though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HI-SEAS#Missions [wikipedia.org]
Even though they could probably ask the Navy:
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/06/politics/life-on-uss-missouri-nuclear-submarine/index.html [cnn.com]
https://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-submarine7.htm [howstuffworks.com]
All that money and bullshit for "Mars" and "Moon" stuff but where's the scientific research on proving that Mars or Moon gravity is enough for humans? For some reason there isn't enough money for stuff like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Module [wikipedia.org]
So I wouldn't shed a tear if the NASA of today is shutdown.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:23PM
they won't be finding any paperclips(*) in syria, iran or afghanistan.
(*)https://tinyurl.com/6rhll88 (no spoiler)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 09 2019, @09:12AM
And where are the blueprints for all the parts, recipes for the materials and the blueprints for the factories that make the parts and the materials; the blueprints for the tools to make those parts and the blueprints for the factories to make those tools; and the skilled workers and technicians who know what to do and to do it all?
There are lots of people who can't learn how to drive a car from just words and drawings. I'm pretty sure it's the same for certain machine tools. Takes a while to learn how to use them and use them well.
There are lots of detailed drawings of Tyrannosaurus dinosaurs around so I'm sure you'll be able to use those drawings to build one from scratch without existing "factories" etc.
(Score: -1) by MyOpinion on Friday November 08 2019, @04:46PM
Gas expands in all directions, and fills up all available volume, always: this is a law of nature.
Yet, some will claim that it magically coats the alleged "sphere world" that we all exist in, and pretend that "they travel to the Moon and beyond". But when asked to back it up, what they do is show you badges and direct your attention to amateur cinematic tricks.
Depictions, animations and men in harnesses is not enough, especially if the claim about "the place they go to" violates a well established law of nature (and common sense)
"outer space" is a deception, something else is going on.
Truth is like a Lion: you need not defend it; let it loose, and it defends itself. https://discord.gg/3FScNwc