The Moon or Bust, Says NASA, After Successful Test Flight
Heat shield sustained more damage than expected, but this shouldn't discourage astronauts:
NASA is ready to fly a crew of astronauts to the Moon next year after the success of the first test flight of its Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion capsule.
[...] Orion fulfilled 161 test objectives and was more energy efficient than predicted, generating 20 per cent more power than predicted while consuming about 25 per cent less power than expected. All maneuvers – including flying to and from the Moon, returning to Earth, and releasing the parachute for splashdown into the Pacific Ocean – were executed without any major problems.
There are, however, a few niggling complications. Orion's latching current limiters – which act like circuit breakers to transfer and distribute power from its solar panels – switched open randomly during its flight for unknown reasons. Also, the material covering the heat shield – used to protect the capsule and prevent it and any occupants from incineration as Orion re-enters Earth's atmosphere – deteriorated more than NASA thought it would.
Little things like that.
The mobile launcher part of the SLS also sustained more damage than expected. NASA said its cryogenic fuel lines corroded, while 60 panels and cabinets broke, as did its elevators and blast shields. Officials continue to review hundreds of gigabytes worth of data gathered from the mission.
[...] "We're learning as much as we possibly can from Artemis I to ensure we fully understand every aspect of our systems and feed those lessons learned into how we plan for and fly crewed missions," said Jim Free, NASA associate administrator for the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate, in a prepared statement. "Safely flying crew is our top priority for Artemis II."
Engineers will, for example, modify the mobile launcher for the upcoming Artemis mission. They will build an emergency egress system at the launchpad in case the crew needs to make a last-minute exit from the rocket.
NASA to Reveal Artemis II Crew for Historic Lunar Trip
NASA to reveal Artemis II crew for historic lunar trip:
NASA will soon reveal the four lucky astronauts that will be sent on a flyby of the moon in the Artemis II mission.
The four crewmembers — three from NASA and one from the Canadian Space Agency — will be named on Monday, April 3, NASA chief Bill Nelson announced in a tweet on Thursday.
Artemis II is currently targeted for November 2024 and will use NASA's recently tested Space Launch System (SLS) rocket to power the crew toward the moon aboard an Orion spacecraft.
Following the same route as last year's Artemis I mission that tested the new spaceflight hardware, the four astronauts will come within just 80 miles of the lunar surface in what will be the first crewed voyage to the moon in five decades. It will also fly humans further from Earth than ever before, to a point about 270,000 miles away.
[...] In related news, NASA also said that it will reveal its next-generation spacesuits in a special event on Wednesday, March 15.
The spacesuits, developed by Texas-based Axiom Space, will be worn by the Artemis III astronauts when they set foot on the lunar surface.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sweettea on Sunday March 12 2023, @11:58PM (1 child)
"just" excessive ablation of the heatshield. and random electrical glitches with the solar panels. "just".
I'm glad I'm not riding that thing. I look forward to SpaceX's inevitable triumph over OldSpace.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Monday March 13 2023, @02:13PM
I would rather ride on a safe privately built spacecraft.
Like Boeing Starliner or New Shepard.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Monday March 13 2023, @05:17PM (3 children)
Slightly off topic, but not by much.
Given that sending humans to the Moon is a prelude to sending humans to Mars, I believe the argument by Maciej Cegłowski [idlewords.com] against doing so is quite compelling.
What do you think?
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday March 14 2023, @11:03AM (1 child)
It's a nice article. I like the idea of robotting the hell out of the solar system.
Some counter arguments, not specific to the current NASA programme:
* There *is* an existential threat to human civilisation from e.g. nuclear war, plague, asteroid strikes, etc. A permanent, independent, presence beyond earth will mitigate the risk.
* A permanent activity beyond earth may yield economic benefits e.g. space mining (noting that the American colonies were not financially viable for about a century after they were founded, until suitable cash crops were discovered).
* Robots can't do basic tasks e.g. minor maintenance. There is no way to establish a permanent presence beyond earth without humans.
* The "mitigation of risk" also requires direct human presence in space.
One might argue that on these grounds a moon base makes more sense.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Tuesday March 14 2023, @06:16PM
Thanks for the reply.
I think points 1 & 2, contradict each other. If nuclear war (or whatever) happens while the colony is not self-sufficient, then everyone is wiped out anyway.
I believe that the confluence of AI and robots will render many tasks (including fabrication and maintenance) possible without human hands. (It will affect our way of life in many ways, but that is another discussion.)
I really would like a lot more a probe to Enceladus or Europa than billions to get a couple of guys walking around in Mars, but I agree with you, space exploration has brought and will bring economic and scientific benefits for humankind.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday March 14 2023, @12:16PM
ps: I also argue that research using humans makes many research tasks trivial that are impossible for a rover. For example, taking the reference to the Martian "Ichnofossils", it is trivial for a suitably equipped human to put such a fossil into a mass spectrometer, to take sections through the fossils to examine substructure, and so on. This is simply not possible for a robot.