- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Artemis II Mission - GO for launch, April 1st at 5:24 CST - 80% weather favorability
Posted on 2/3/26 at 7:51 am to Giantkiller
Posted on 2/3/26 at 7:51 am to Giantkiller
quote:
I'm actually surprised Elon hasn't been working on an alternative Moon landing plan anyway. I
Isn't that what SpaceX is doing already? Their part of this is the lunar lander.
0
Posted on 2/3/26 at 7:55 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
At however many billions of tax payer dollars per launch, and given that Artemis has somehow taken the same amount of time to develop Apollo (Apollo had less technology and arguably smarter people), how can anyone view this as anything other than a massive money grift to the aerospace defense community?
Agreed
And I'll add that WVB wasn't saddled with DEI and didn't have to overcome decades of NASA bloat.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 8:08 am to Giantkiller
He has been working on an alternate plan. He literally tweeted that SpaceX would do the entire mission. Nobody is stopping him.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 8:10 am to DarthRebel
Hydrogen is the highest performing rocket fuel on the planet. It makes sense for moon missions.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 8:13 am to DarthRebel
quote:
Hydrogen is a bitch, glad SpaceX and others are moving away from it.
Yeah, but see that number below the H. It makes it super useful for spaceflight. There is nothing in the universe that is more energetic for the weight...
Posted on 2/3/26 at 8:13 am to Giantkiller
quote:
I'm actually surprised Elon hasn't been working on an alternative Moon landing plan anyway
Last year NASA asked for an alternative lander to SpaceX. The prevailing idea is SpaceX cannot deliver or at least not deliver on time.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 8:18 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
What are the goals of this mission...just to go around the moon? Are there any other secondary goals, or is this just more of a test thing to see about getting people back to the moon?
It is to maintain funding, when it is obvious that the one-off model that NASA has used for years is not viable.
I honestly have a bad feeling about this one.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 8:25 am to LanierSpots
quote:
I was hoping the amout of time spent on the second stage would be enough to ace it but I have a feeling they wont.
I believe we will see an Artemis 2.5 before we see Artemis 3
Posted on 2/3/26 at 8:25 am to fightin tigers
quote:
The prevailing idea is SpaceX cannot deliver or at least not deliver on time.
On the 60 minutes segment, they painted it as SpaceX was "over-complicating" the moon lander and that Blue Origin was ready to go with a more traditional lander design. I think that's probably oversimplifying things just a bit.
Totally reasonable to expect Blue Origin to work up a simplified lander for Artemis III, while SpaceX focuses on their lander for future more complex moon missions and Mars.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 9:40 am to The Pirate King
quote:
Delay to March launch window confirmed.
I don't believe they will go this year. Who knows when? They will keep having to back it up.
I have seen a lot of articles and comments on the internet that we are getting ready to send people back to the moon and no one really cares or is paying attention. This is why.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 9:55 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
There is nothing in the universe that is more energetic for the weight...
But it actually turns out it’s heavier to use in spacecraft than super chilled methane.
The low energy density means you need larger tanks, along with auxiliary equipment and insulation to maintain the liquid state.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 10:02 am to The Pirate King
Cost per Launch
Artemis II $2–4+ billion (very high due to expendable nature & program structure)
Starship:
Current estimates $100M+; long-term goal <$10M
Artemis II $2–4+ billion (very high due to expendable nature & program structure)
Starship:
Current estimates $100M+; long-term goal <$10M
Posted on 2/3/26 at 10:23 am to Lonnie Utah
the hindenburg blimp had a lot of energy, that had trouble with containment. old problem well researched
Posted on 2/3/26 at 10:40 am to TheOcean
quote:
Just turn over nasa funding to musk and call it a day
Low earth orbit elon has only managed to get a human 0.1% of the way to the moon. Meanwhile the ula conglomerates are pretty close to doing it again, with a 2nd vehicle, when nobody else in history is above 0.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 10:52 am to Auburn1968
Id like to know what an Apollo launch cost was, adjusted for inflation. It had to be astronomical ( lulz)
Putting tons into lunar orbit and getting it back just takes a shitload of horsepower and theres no avoiding it.
Putting tons into lunar orbit and getting it back just takes a shitload of horsepower and theres no avoiding it.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 11:51 am to Auburn1968
For those asking about long term mission goals and viability of SLS, the tweet below provides some good insight on NASA's thinking.
TLDR: the limitations of SLS are known but it's still the best option we have to reach the moon and establish a base before China. Likely to be used until at least Artemis V in the early 2030's.
TLDR: the limitations of SLS are known but it's still the best option we have to reach the moon and establish a base before China. Likely to be used until at least Artemis V in the early 2030's.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 2/3/26 at 12:01 pm to MoarKilometers
quote:
Low earth orbit elon has only managed to get a human 0.1% of the way to the moon. Meanwhile the ula conglomerates are pretty close to doing it again, with a 2nd vehicle, when nobody else in history is above 0.
Falcon Heavy could put men on the Moon within the week. That is not the point of Starship. Rapid reusability is not easy.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 12:04 pm to The Pirate King
I've been around long enough to remember the Constellation Program (Bush era). That was scrapped by Obama without a second thought (seemly for no other reason than because it was a Republican program), then allowed NASA to flounder for years. That was the time of the muslim outreach that is so popular here. 
Honestly, Artemis building off of some of the Constellation Program was the best option IMHO during Trump's first administration.
Honestly, Artemis building off of some of the Constellation Program was the best option IMHO during Trump's first administration.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 12:26 pm to TheLSUriot
quote:
the Constellation Program (Bush era). That was scrapped by Obama without a second thought (seemly for no other reason than because it was a Republican program), then allowed NASA to flounder for years.
I'll put it this way without getting too political...if a Dem wins and we haven't put people back on the moon by January 2029, NASA and space exploration funding at large may be reduced to levels not seen before, simply out of spite for Trump, Elon, and even Bezos.
A successful moon landing in 2028 is extremely critical for the US to maintain its status in the world.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 12:30 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
How will this lead to crewed missions to Mars?
It wont. Elon Musk and Buzz Aldrin aside, Mars really isn't doable for a manned mission unless its a one-and-done suicide trip.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News