- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m a card carrying SLS hater, but I would rather have it do missions like this than Artemis. I hate the political gamesmanship that has to go on with these programs, but if allocating a few SLS launches for science (MSR and Dragonfly?) opens the door for Artemis to start to move away from SLS and Orion, then I’ll gladly take it.
As long as that payload can survive SLS’s vibration environment that would have shaken Europa Clipper to pieces!
Isn’t the current SLS approach also heavily criticized because it calls for 10+ refueling flights or something?
It’s amazing what was possible through pragmatism back in the day. Now capitalism and politics seem to make everything 10 times as complicated…The human landing systems (HLS) require refuelling, not SLS. SpaceX will need 10ish flights for their Starship lunar lander, but that number changes as vehicle performance improves. I don’t know the number of refuelling flights for Blue Origin’s lander.
You won’t catch me defending SLS or Orion at all (cost, timelines, old tech, pork, etc.), I just wanted to clarify that point.
Regarding the Apollo comparison- that program was cancelled for a reason. They hit diminishing marginal returns on sending a little lander and rover, so the money wasn’t worth it. Why would we do that again? Artemis is supposed to be bigger, “sustainable” and more long term with longer surface stays, the pressurized rover, a crew hab, a space station, and international collaboration.
