Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday November 22, @02:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-just-for-bacteria dept.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/63694132

So according to NASA humans could be living on the moon, for long periods of time, before the end of the decade. So from more or less nothing to (pre-) colonization in about seven (or eight) years then. At least the moon is closer then Mars, but you are probably still borked if something goes wrong.

"We're going to be sending people down to the surface and they're going to be living on that surface and doing science," Mr Hu said.

"It's really going to be very important for us to learn a little bit beyond our Earth's orbit and then do a big step when we go to Mars.

"And the Artemis missions enable us to have a sustainable platform and transportation system that allows us to learn how to operate in that deep space environment."

Big question then is -- if asked (or given the opportunity) would you go?


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Tuesday November 22, @03:09PM (4 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 22, @03:09PM (#1281038) Homepage Journal

    This is the agency that things that the SLS is actually a useful rocket, even though it takes years to produce one. Starship may (maybe) be the solution, but it hasn't actually flown yet. And yet, they want to talk about a permanent habitat in 8 years. Riiiight.

    I am actually a space enthusiast. However, I am seriously pissed at NASA for wasting literal decades throwing money at "old space". Yes, I know it's the fault of Congress, only - that isn't entirely true. NASA could have changed the specs of what they want from old space. They could have demanded something like Falcon, and something like Starship. They didn't, because of "Pournelle's Iron Law". We should have had a permanent moon habitat at the turn of the century. Currently, we'll be lucky to have one before 2035 at the earliest, and it may be China that builds it.

    I'd love to be pleasantly surprised...

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22, @03:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22, @03:28PM (#1281045)

    They will be lucky to have boots on the Moon by 2028. No long-term habitat.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22, @05:09PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22, @05:09PM (#1281076)

    It's like the palaces of old. You need an entire country of slave workers to maintain a few Royal palaces. We'd literally have to get everyone "hardcore" focused on L Ron's mission so he and a few buddies could yuck it up on the moon, until it all disintegrated.

    Look at what happened in Britain in the early 20th Century when people started to get the vote and put some mild limits on extravagances by way of taxation. Poof! All those country houses became instantly unaffordable and got donated to the State.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22, @05:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22, @05:15PM (#1281078)

    If you didn't catch it, the roll-up to the Artemis launch was hours of hype for Boeing and what NASA thinks
    they are going to do building a permanent base at the lunar south pole.
    During that whole thing, there was almost no mention of SpaceX

  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday November 22, @06:02PM

    by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday November 22, @06:02PM (#1281103)

    Nope. This is the agency required by law to commission and use the SLS because of an uncancelable pork program. I believe they even lost a director because (according to the rumor mill) he was too vocal of an opponent. I don't believe the SLS has yet been scheduled for a single mission beyond those spelled out by Congress.

    Going forward it doesn't look like SLS has a future beyond being a backup in case of delays, and transporting astronauts from Earth to lunar orbit and back until there's another crew-rated option.