According to Marshall Smith from @NASA the Gateway is not a space station its a spacecraft. Well, by definition, all space stations are space craft – they have propulsion. BTW the Gateway Spacecraft looks like the Mir Space Station. Just sayin' #Artemis#Moon2024pic.twitter.com/o6sP5d52D2
At Users Advisory Group meeting today Marshall Smith Acting Dep Assoc Administrator @NASA Human Lunar Exploration Programs told participants that #NASA is going to "turn and burn" from the Moon to Mars. So much for going back to the Moon to stay – "sustainably" #Artemis#Moon2024pic.twitter.com/unNvw0lGaU
Ugh so once again the HQ bureaucracy is planning whatever they want despite the space council and other directives about living on the moon for 6 month and year long durations.
Turn and burn for Mars? Cause one or two 6 day sortie missions makes us totally ready for 1000 day Mars mission. how many block 2 SLS and EUS. The only thing turning and burning is the cash for SLS and Orion while it spins it’s wheels trying to figure out where it can sell Congress to let it go, and
The sped-up version of the Artemis project now seems about as likely to be realized as Donald Trump’s Mexican border wall, Has anyone asked Elizabeth Warren what her space exploration plans are?
ISS took 25 years from start to assembly complete and full operation. Orion has been in development for 15 years without a real flight yet. Maybe it can make it to the vicinity of the Moon by 20 years? Mars 30 years from now?? Not the way NASA works.
from the post Marshall Smith told participants that NASA is going to “turn and burn” from the Moon to Mars.
If he really said this, then I predict Artemis will not make it to the moon for same reason VSE never made it to the moon because as Paul Spudis wrote they were discussing lunar exit strategy before discussing lunar landings.
Not a big surprise as NASA has gotten conflicting guidance from the White House. Is is back to the Moon to stay and then on to Mars OR is it back to the Moon really quick and then focus on Mars? 45’s changed his tune several times on this, like he does with just about everything else. Those are two drastically different human spaceflight roadmaps. It’s great to get White House attention, but all of that attention is self-defeating if its schizophrenic.
And you have been in error. Gateway has always been about accessing the ENTIRE solar system including the Moon, with the Moon serving as the leveraging resource depot that holds the potential to eventually enable all, which was the backbone of the original VSE. Even the NRHO choice (a dynamical derivative of the original L1 specification) is very intentionally anchored to lunar access & support while also accommodating deeper space access. Read all the papers! Your fixation on the shell game PR regarding Gateway that went on during the Obama Administration’s silly ARM distraction while NASA bided its time is blinding you to the actual history. I recommend the recently published history book that explores the Gateway’s origins so you can get your facts straight…finally:
Ugh so once again the HQ bureaucracy is planning whatever they want despite the space council and other directives about living on the moon for 6 month and year long durations.
Turn and burn for Mars? Cause one or two 6 day sortie missions makes us totally ready for 1000 day Mars mission. how many block 2 SLS and EUS. The only thing turning and burning is the cash for SLS and Orion while it spins it’s wheels trying to figure out where it can sell Congress to let it go, and
The sped-up version of the Artemis project now seems about as likely to be realized as Donald Trump’s Mexican border wall, Has anyone asked Elizabeth Warren what her space exploration plans are?
Given NASA’s track record, that means Mars in 2052!
ISS took 25 years from start to assembly complete and full operation. Orion has been in development for 15 years without a real flight yet. Maybe it can make it to the vicinity of the Moon by 20 years? Mars 30 years from now?? Not the way NASA works.
from the post Marshall Smith told participants that NASA is going to “turn and burn” from the Moon to Mars.
If he really said this, then I predict Artemis will not make it to the moon for same reason VSE never made it to the moon because as Paul Spudis wrote they were discussing lunar exit strategy before discussing lunar landings.
Not a big surprise as NASA has gotten conflicting guidance from the White House. Is is back to the Moon to stay and then on to Mars OR is it back to the Moon really quick and then focus on Mars? 45’s changed his tune several times on this, like he does with just about everything else. Those are two drastically different human spaceflight roadmaps. It’s great to get White House attention, but all of that attention is self-defeating if its schizophrenic.
Yes, I wish Trump would go focus on some other agency and leave NASA alone.
I have been saying this from day one .. that gateway was never about the moon..
And you have been in error.
Gateway has always been about accessing the ENTIRE solar system including the Moon, with the Moon serving as the leveraging resource depot that holds the potential to eventually enable all, which was the backbone of the original VSE. Even the NRHO choice (a dynamical derivative of the original L1 specification) is very intentionally anchored to lunar access & support while also accommodating deeper space access. Read all the papers!
Your fixation on the shell game PR regarding Gateway that went on during the Obama Administration’s silly ARM distraction while NASA bided its time is blinding you to the actual history. I recommend the recently published history book that explores the Gateway’s origins so you can get your facts straight…finally:
https://www.nasa.gov/connec…