Der Kongress warnte, dass der aktuelle Plan der NASA für Artemis „nicht funktionieren kann“ | „Die Mission Artemis III und die darüber hinausgehenden Missionen sollten abgesagt werden.“
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/12/congress-told-there-needs-to-be-consequences-for-nasa-delays-amid-chinas-rise/
21 Kommentare
> NASA’s current plan for Artemis cannot work
…well, not with that attitude
This isn’t a “race.” China is about 55 years late lol.
Future nasa moon missions should be about permanent science exploration and habitation. Not visits.
They need a course correction.
welp, it’s finally happening, to the surprise of very few
I’d really like to hear more about why Mike Griffin doesn’t believe in-orbit cryo fuel transfer can work. Blue Origin is working on it, SpaceX is working on it, cryocooling isn’t flight tested but well demonstrated on the ground, and there are several possible paths to enabling fuel transfer. I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt as he’s an aerospace engineer and former NASA administrator, but it really does seem feasible and like the path forwards in space.
Furthermore, I understand that it’s a national pride thing, but surely it’s more impressive to come second with a robust, expandable architecture that can land vastly more tonnage on the lunar surface and enable permanent habitation than it is to throw away that progress and try to sprint to catch up with our national competitor? That feels like a prestige L to me, but I’m just a layman. I agree with his conclusion that cost-plus contracting is clearly not the way to proceed with funding projects in the future, though.
They went to the moon with a slide rule… /s
One helpful thing might be to try to come up with an actual reason for whatever program is to be supported. „First man on Mars“ is a complete waste of money, for example. Even humans on the Moon seems pretty crazy considering the rapid progress of robotics.
Berger is not a credible source
Just out of curiosity, what happens if the Chinese land humans on the moon before we can return from landing there ~50 years ago? Are they going to kick our American flag around?
Are we afraid of them claiming strategic parts of the moon that we have an interest in? If that were the case, why didn’t we claim those/establish those in the past 50+ years since we landed on the moon?
Maybe it’s a good thing the Chinese are landing on the moon. At least Congress is giving NASA this 10 billion dollar „infusion,“ although it won’t help us land Americans on the moon in the next 10 years (according to the article). Hopefully this changes the US’s mentality from neglecting NASA’s budget for decades to pouring money into NASA to „Beat the Chinese“ in a space race to colonize the Moon.
Seriously, China should have done this decades ago!
I’ve been saying this for 3 years.
Oh man, I staid this on the SpaceX sub and was nearly lynched. Not sure what’s up with those guys, but reality isn’t something they are ready to deal with.. or the fact that Elon is, and always had been, full of shit on his timelines.
What is the funding levels between China and the US going to the moon? Many of nasa’s programs are funding limited vs engineering limited. Often times ‘difficult’ engineering problems are pushed with the hope that funding will be available.
It’s too late. The GOP and Trump administration have already ceded US supremacy in space.
Ironic that the headline is implying SLS is bad, but all of the criticism is actually directed at HLS.
This country is so doomed
I really believe the US needs to lose this space race. It’ll hurt our national pride, but I hope it puts us back on a path of science and education. It’s the only way to compete.
Ask the space guru Elon to fix it then……
Next year
Next year
Next year
Every one of the people quoted in that article is a Space Hawk. All are conservatives.
Michael D. Griffin was deputy of technology for the Strategic Defense Initiative under Reagan, and what a wonderful success the Star Wars program was. If only he had known back then what factors indicate that a specific space program would „never work.“ Griffin was also GW Bush’s head of NASA from 2005 to 2009.
Clayton Swope likes to write articles about militarizing space, including one in Feb 2025, in which he praised Trump’s order to create a new Star Wars missile defense system.
Dean Cheng was a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation for 13 years.
Artemis has had a rocky path, but I’m not sure I trust these guys to provide science-based rather than politics-based commentary on why Artemis might be in trouble.
It is really interesting that the IG and GAO put out reports critical of Orion and SLS every 6 months or so, until the programs were proven by Artemis 1 (although they still hatcheted Orion on the heat shield).
But not a word or any due diligence on the complete disaster that constitutes HLS. NASA leadership, the IG and GAO were not even aware that each lander was one use only and would not be returned or reused. So much for doing your homework and providing oversight.
An Eric Berger article taking shots at SLS. And water is wet. It’s what he does.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|——-|———|—|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|[EVA](/r/Space/comments/1pei5oo/stub/nscvf97 „Last usage“)|Extra-Vehicular Activity|
|[GAO](/r/Space/comments/1pei5oo/stub/nsctov5 „Last usage“)|(US) Government Accountability Office|
|[HLS](/r/Space/comments/1pei5oo/stub/nsctov5 „Last usage“)|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1pei5oo/stub/nscv4nx „Last usage“)|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1pei5oo/stub/nscvd72 „Last usage“)|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
|[USAF](/r/Space/comments/1pei5oo/stub/nscsfmd „Last usage“)|United States Air Force|
|Jargon|Definition|
|——-|———|—|
|[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/1pei5oo/stub/nscp5t7 „Last usage“)|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)|
|[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1pei5oo/stub/nscr3xn „Last usage“)|SpaceX’s world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
|[cryogenic](/r/Space/comments/1pei5oo/stub/nscp5t7 „Last usage“)|Very low temperature fluid; materials that would be gaseous at room temperature/pressure|
| |(In re: rocket fuel) Often synonymous with hydrolox|
|hydrolox|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer|
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
—————-
^([Thread #11948 for this sub, first seen 5th Dec 2025, 02:36])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
They need that money to make more weapons so they can plunder more countries for natural gas, oil, minerals, coke, etc.