The Artemis II mission to orbit the moon has been pushed back:
The space agency had planned to send four astronauts around the moon late this year, but pushed the flight to September 2025.... NASA cited safety concerns with its own spacecraft, as well as development issues with the moonsuits and landers coming from private industry.
Damn. It's only January 10th and already one of my predictions for 2024 has failed. I knew I was being aggressively optimistic when I made it, but I foolishly went ahead anyway. I should have remembered my own advice: Everything takes longer than you think.
In making time estimates, I generally plan ahead carefully and in great detail, make my best estimate, and then multiply by Pi.
That seems to be spot on most of the time.
Earn $280 an hour. Hiring is not a simple process. Either way, there are many of tools vc02 available to assist you in with your work style. Get inspired to advertise hundreds of positions on employment vx20 portals and job boards.
Take a look at this.................................. https://careershome74.blogspot.com/
So much for the "obvious superiority" of private industry to that bad old government, and how quick and nimble it is. On the other hand, I look back to the sf of the 1950s that had kids building moon rockets in their back yards, and actually going there...
No worries: Elon Musk said two space tourists would orbit the moon in a SpaceX craft before 2019, so it has already happened.
That was the year after a Tesla drove itself across the country in auto-summon, to reach its owner. Then, in 2020, there were 1 million Tesla robotaxis on the road.
Hey, what if we captured all that CO2, compressed it, then sent it to the moon to release?
use a very tall smoke stack.
It does make you wonder how they ever managed to get to the moon and back safely back in the 1960s. I think Artemis has already been in development quite a bit longer than Apollo was when the first orbital took place in 68.
Yeah, there's been a lot of sneering and sniping at NASA for years now about how "corporations could do this faster and cheaper," but sending stuff "out there" to "do stuff" is actually really difficult. Much more difficult than building a plane that drops bombs on civilians.
+1
The corporations are doing it cheaper. Of course, it can be argued that's just the result of advancing technology and NASA could do the same with an in-house program.
Because they were serious about results not profit. It might seem nuanced, but the Apollo program's heart was about success and they just barely escaped the lust for money that is usually our national mantra. It eventually caught up with Challenger and normalized deviance but was squelched until the profit mongers fully snatched the programs away and placed it into a space where an eventual revenue stream with l could be found.
Space exploration is expensive with a low return. But. It. Is. Glorious.