LunaticBZ t1_je6on79 wrote
This article is poorly written.
The main reason it's taken so long to get back to the moon is there's no point going to the moon for a photo op.
NASA realized when we go back it should be to stay.
Why the Artemis missions are focused on figuring out how to set up permanent presence both on the moon and the Lunar Gateway.
We need water on the moon, for water mainly. And for Hydrogen.
What the moon truly offers though is long term and that's manufacturing, refining, and mining. Off of Earth.
We aren't launching any mega structure from Earth ever. No matter how good rockets get.
From the moon... Yes we can build mega structures.
SLS program is already done they are only building the current rockets. Starship will be the rocket used for future programs.
rocketsocks t1_je6ybxx wrote
That's part of the reason. We've also made very poor architectural choices with Orion and SLS, both of which have been insanely expensive. We've also had very questionable program leadership and half-hearted management over the lifetime of the program. The current lunar program is the 3rd iteration of beyond-LEO human spaceflight within the past 15 years.
bookers555 t1_je77nm9 wrote
That wasn't a choice, it was forced. Congress forced the SLS to be an ultra expensive zombie of the Saturn V to let the people who worked on the Space Shuttle mantain their job. I don't think people understand how much of a ridiculous waste of money it is to use RS-25 engines on a rocket. Those engines are VERY expensive, but that's because they are meant to be reused.
Least they could have done is figure out a way to, at least, recover the first stage of the SLS.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments