NASA did not want Artemis

[Life is Golden]

Not until you mentioned it. He made it then died: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/30/us/navy-seal-training-death.html

The physical brutality is a reality for our special ops people being sent to war. Movies like "12 Strong" and "Lone Survivor" don't come close to it.

In this case, the death of Seaman Kyle Mullen, and the injuries of the others, is a failure of leadership and oversight. With all the tech we have these days, either they need to be wired for monitoring or regularly checked by doctors.

He could have quit, but he really wanted this which should tell you something in itself.

Nowhere close to Hell Week, but Naval flight training is tough on people. About a third quit or were medically-stamped "Not Aeronautically Adapted (NAA)". Usually due to airsickness, but sometimes inability to cope with the stress or lacking ability. If a student threw up, instructors were required to return if they felt the student couldn't complete the flight.

Students who frequently became airsick (i.e. every flight) were given the option of quitting or going to NAMI for what was affectionally known as "Spin & Puke training". The students go through a course of daily aversion training which included injecting them with something to make them nauseous then spin them until they puke...at least in my day. The link below shows the Navy has mellowed a bit since the late 70s. LOL

https://www.pnj.com/story/news/military/2017/02/19/chair-helps-conquer-motion-sickness/97991014/

I had a graduate who still had a problem. He was literally trying to fly with one hand while puking in a bag with the other. It was one of the few times I had to return. He was a great guy; huge football player for the Naval Academy and very dedicated. He's the type that would end up like Seaman Kyle Mullen if someone let him. They aren't prisoners, but the leadership is responsible for their safety. Someone seriously fucked to end up with a dead person in training.

Yes I read all about it. I can't believe no one forced him to go to the hospital. If I coughed blood I would be on my way to the ER asap.

That is really bad that the instructors did not insist, seems very wrong.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes I read all about it. I can't believe no one forced him to go to the hospital. If I coughed blood I would be on my way to the ER asap.

That is really bad that the instructors did not insist, seems very wrong.

Agreed. Coughing up blood should require a doctor visit. It's a failure of leadership.

 

[Bigdog]

Yes I read all about it. I can't believe no one forced him to go to the hospital. If I coughed blood I would be on my way to the ER asap.

That is really bad that the instructors did not insist, seems very wrong.

He could have quit at any time. It's very likely the young man wanted to pass so badly, that he hid his illness from the instructors and medical personnel until after he passed hell week. I'm sure there will be an investigation.

Spitting in a bottle is something you do if you're already riding in a jeep or ambulance, ... not swimming in the ocean.

 

[Walt]

He could have quit at any time. It's very likely the young man wanted to pass so badly, that he hid his illness from the instructors and medical personnel until after he passed hell week. I'm sure there will be an investigation.

Spitting in a bottle is something you do if you're already riding in a jeep or ambulance, ... not swimming in the ocean.

It is just common sense to have a medical checkup at the end of Hell Week, and to have medical personnel observing the situation during Hell Week.

He was sitting in a wheelchair at the end of Hell Week, so not in the ocean. I know Navy Seals go into the ocean a lot, but they are also on dry land even more.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Interesting that I am seeing Mind Molders with an anti Artemis narrative.

I am now confident that if NASA blows this thing up tomorrow then the program is over.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Soon after the Astronaut program will likely end, as it will have no reason for being.

The Chinese will love that!

 

[Walt]

Soon after the Astronaut program will likely end, as it will have no reason for being.

The Chinese will love that!

SpaceX Starship Rockets are literally built to send people to Mars. It can easily be used to send people to the Moon. It appears that it will be used by NASA to do just that, if NASA does not use SLS.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Soon after the Astronaut program will likely end, as it will have no reason for being.

The Chinese will love that!

It's all very confusing!

NASA says SpaceX is sending only a "skeleton" version of its lunar Starship spacecraft to the surface of the Moon during an upcoming, uncrewed test mission.

It'll be so stripped down, in fact, that it won't even be required to demonstrate that it can take back off after landing.

"For the uncrewed demo, the goal is to have a safe landing," said Lisa Watson-Morgan, manager of NASA's Human Landing System (HLS) program, during a presentation this week, as quoted by SpaceNews.

"The uncrewed demo is not necessarily planned to be the same Starship that you see for the crewed demo," she added. "It’s going to be a skeleton because it just has to land. It does not have to take back off."

Perhaps anticipating that her comments may stir some debate over whether SpaceX will actually be required to return astronauts safely, Watson-Morgan added that "clearly we want it to" take off from the Moon, "but the requirements are for it to land."

"We don’t tell them to do anything with it," Logan Kennedy, HLS surface lead at NASA, said at the event, referring to the Starship spacecraft once astronauts are returned from the Moon's surface. "That’s going to be up to SpaceX."

Back in 2021, NASA's HLS program chose SpaceX as its private partner for developing a spacecraft capable of returning astronauts to the Moon for its Artemis program.

Despite plenty of drama surrounding NASA's decision, SpaceX has emerged as the space agency's de facto collaborator, receiving billions in funding to turn its super heavy lift Starship into a lunar lander.

But Artemis 3, NASA's first planned crewed mission to the lunar surface, is still a long way out. And while SpaceX has made strides in developing Starship, it has yet to successfully launch it or its accompanying Super Heavy booster to orbit.

During the upcoming uncrewed mission, NASA and SpaceX may chose to take along "potentially one payload," according to Watson-Morgan, landing near the south pole of the Moon.

Artemis 3, however, will be far more involved. For one, there's the size of the Starship itself. Astronauts will have a very unique perspective once the 165 feet-tall spacecraft lands upright on the surface.

That also means getting in and out will prove a lot more difficult than simply climbing up and down the ladder attached to the outside of Apollo-era lunar landers.

SpaceX has been working on an exterior elevator that take crews down to the surface. The company already built a full-scale mockup of the system, allowing astronauts to test it out while wearing simulated spacesuits, SpaceNews reported that Kennedy said.

"It’s a very tall lander," Watson-Morgan said during this week's meeting. "It doesn’t look like the traditional landers that we’ve all seen in the past, so it can be hard to reconcile that mentally."

NASA and SpaceX have their work cut out for them. For instance, SpaceX is still figuring out how many Starship spacecraft it will have to launch into orbit to actually get to the Moon. The company is envisioning the spacecraft to also serve as a mobile fuel tank, providing a place for other Starship to refuel in orbit before headed to Moontown.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...on-moon-not-bring-them-home-again/ar-AA113oMm

 

[Walt]

It's all very confusing!

Launching a spacecraft from the moon is technically easier than landing on the moon, but also exponentially more expensive. So they are sending a cheaper stripped down spacecraft to test the dangerous moon landing.

It is what always amazed me about the Apollo mission. Imagine not just sending human being several thousand times further from the Earth than anyone had ever been from the Earth, but also landing them with enough fuel to take off again. On Earth, it is comparatively easy to collect together enough fuel to lift off, but you have to actually transport a rocket to the Moon to takeoff. It is insanely expensive.

And landing on the Moon, which does not have an atmosphere, it amazingly complex. Add into that the Moon is outside the protection of the Earth's magnetic field, and therefore gets intense solar radiation (which does a real number on any microelectronics)... It is a real accomplishment.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Launching a spacecraft from the moon is technically easier than landing on the moon, but also exponentially more expensive. So they are sending a cheaper stripped down spacecraft to test the dangerous moon landing.

It is what always amazed me about the Apollo mission. Imagine not just sending human being several thousand times further from the Earth than anyone had ever been from the Earth, but also landing them with enough fuel to take off again. On Earth, it is comparatively easy to collect together enough fuel to lift off, but you have to actually transport a rocket to the Moon to takeoff. It is insanely expensive.

And landing on the Moon, which does not have an atmosphere, it amazingly complex. Add into that the Moon is outside the protection of the Earth's magnetic field, and therefore gets intense solar radiation (which does a real number on any microelectronics)... It is a real accomplishment.

Landing on somewhere like the Moon with no atmosphere is much easier than landing on Mars with its thin atmosphere. The LEM didn't require a heatshield for starters unlike Mars which has precisely the wrong kind of atmosphere. It’s thick enough to require a heat shield, but thin enough to not stop a spacecraft enough, so you also need parachutes which have to open at supersonic speeds. The presence of an atmosphere also makes it difficult to use rockets.