#### Soumya-8974

Wikipedia said:
The Artemis program is an ongoing crewed spaceflight program carried out by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), American commercial spaceflight companies and international partners, with the goal of landing the first woman and the next man on the lunar surface by 2024. Artemis would be the first step towards the long-term goal of establishing a "sustainable" American presence on the Moon, laying the foundation for private companies to build a lunar economy, and eventually sending humans to Mars.

Mandated by Space Policy Directive 1 in 2017, the lunar campaign was created and will utilize various spacecraft such as Orion, the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway space station, and commercially-developed lunar landers. The Space Launch System will serve as the primary launch vehicle for Orion, while commercial launch vehicles are planned for use to launch various other elements of the campaign. The Trump administration proposed an extra $1.6 billion on top of the already proposed$21 billion for the 2020 fiscal year. The funding is yet to be approved by Congress.

Last edited:

#### Urwumpe

##### Not funny anymore
Donator
Not sure if the LOPG is worth it, also it is underfunded from the start.

On the other hand, the plan would be realistic and feasible with proper funding. But if you estimate about one trillion for the Artemis program, just 1.6 billion would take decades to finish.

#### 4throck

##### Enthusiast !
I too don't see much advantage on having a lunar orbital station.
Makes more sense to land a Hab module in advance of the crew landing...

And going by ISS crew safety, I doubt they will land on the Moon without a backup lifeboat ascent vehicle already landed.
Just my 2cents

#### MaverickSawyer

##### Acolyte of the Probe
This will never happen, tbh.

#### Donamy

Donator
Beta Tester
I think an orbital parking garage, for re-usable landers and re-fueling makes sense. Then you can use smaller payload drones for re-supply. IMO

#### Kyle

##### Armchair Astronaut
Amazing seeing on social media how much NASA is selling Project Artemis's 2024 deadline. I see a post every day on Twitter, FB, Instagram, et cetera about sending the "next man and first women" to the Moon in 2024. NASA's really put a lot of its credibility on the line to meet that deadline. If NASA fails to meet 2024, it'll be devastating to their credibility, way more so than Project Constellation. Already hearing they're looking into making hard cuts into other programs to compensate for the \$1.6 billion Congress denied the program.

I believe that if Project Artemis fails it'll be the end of NASA's human spaceflight program.

Last edited:

#### Donamy

Donator
Beta Tester
If Trump doesn't get re-elected, it'll be the first thing cut.

#### Star Voyager

##### Space Shuttle Refugee
I never understood the need for Gateway, especially with radiation concerns and what we know about the transition from 0g to 1g after a multi-month mission. With a surface base, I would think the astronauts and cosmonauts would be better protected from radiation (options to go underground?) and going from 1/6g to 1g might be an easier transition.

The need for commercial partners is understandable but 37 launches with multiple different vehicles seems a bit much, maybe consolidation might help (more launches for SLS = lowered flight cost?).

Going back to capsules seems like an odd choice, did they expect a quicker design process based off of Apollo? It's not like there's 50 years worth of info on lifting bodies, and I would much rather have a reusable vehicle land on a runway after a couple g reentry than being rescued in the ocean after a 6-7g (eyeballs out) ballistic ride.

I could go on about redoing the last 15 years (not retiring STS, developing SideMount at the same time) but maybe another thread...

#### GLS

##### Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
I never understood the need for Gateway, especially with radiation concerns
8 months to Mars is probably worse...

after a 6-7g (eyeballs out) ballistic ride.
No, the force pushed them into the seats.

#### Star Voyager

##### Space Shuttle Refugee
8 months to Mars is probably worse...

No, the force pushed them into the seats.

I thought backwards was eyeballs out? Maybe I have it backwards. Either way...

#### 4throck

##### Enthusiast !
... a reusable vehicle land on a runway ...
You can land on solid ground with a capsule, and perhaps NASA is making a mistake by not going that route. Old habits perhaps.

I'm OK with a non reusable capsule, but the expendable SLS seems out of place. Specially with the Falcon Heavy nearby.

In my view they should simply build ISS2 on the lunar surface. Makes much more sense, because it would evolve naturally from the existing program.
And yes, they would need to dig a shelter because of radiation and meteor showers.

Last edited:

#### Star Voyager

##### Space Shuttle Refugee
You can land on solid ground with a capsule, and perhaps NASA is making a mistake by not going that route. Old habits perhaps.

I'm OK with a non reusable capsule, but the expendable SLS seems out of place. Specially with the Falcon Heavy nearby.

In my view they should simply build ISS2 on the lunar surface. Makes much more sense, because it would evolve naturally from the existing program.
And yes, they would need to dig a shelter because of radiation and meteor showers.

I get capsules can land on land, just thought lifting bodies would be gentler during reentry and get the best of both worlds.

Reusable launch vehicle would be ideal, though I'm not sure the vertically integrated Orion could go on the horizontally integrated Falcon Heavy. Also not sure how much Dragon was built up for deep space as opposed to LEO.

#### 4throck

##### Enthusiast !
I think that Dragon would do fine in deep-space, but you need to add a propulsion module for any serious mission.

But both Orion and Dragon really need a habitation module.
Personal hygiene comes to mind here, with four to six guys/girls inside a capsule for days.
There's some kind of toilet in Orion but the Soyuz approach, where (as far as I know) you go into the Orbital module (that also has an airlock for disposal if needed) is just better.

That's why I'm very skeptical of all this, NASA seems to be skipping some basics.

Donator

#### Donamy

Donator
Beta Tester
Honey Lavender makes for a great fragrance. :thumbup:

#### Ajaja

##### Member
Artemis? Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_(novel)

#### Thunder Chicken

Donator

Nice idea, but since we haven't been able to put a US astronaut into even LEO on a US rocket since 2011, and may have another year or so before we even get back to that capability, I think maybe we need to get real.

#### 4throck

##### Enthusiast !
Seen from outside of the US the problem seems to be too much internal politics.
It would be better if it was handled like the Antarctica bases or other large research projects. Those have a lower profile but ongoing support and funding, as far as I can see.