I know there are readily-observible NASA debris scattered across the moon. Heck, it's even likely that we've already sent a few Americans up there before (perhaps not as early as '69, but eventually... yeah.sure.fine.).
But why go, even if "again?" Why even have gone in the first place (outside of USSA Space Race posturing)?
What is the point? Even if we discovered the goldliest of oils, deep within moonmantle, it would be absolutely cost-prohibitive to transport commercially between our masses. Perhaps the only use I can think is nuclear waste/bombs (for disposal/testing).
----
equally stupid == Mars gaiabomb
----
So again I'll ask: WHY?
brcmthrowaway 1 days ago [-]
Lunar surface?
bhhaskin 1 days ago [-]
Fly-by
proee 1 days ago [-]
Imagine riding in a vehicle that has been tested zero times. I would be terrified. Best of luck to the team.
riffic 1 days ago [-]
Have the vehicles not been tested? It seems a strange premise to make.
It’s kind of wild that I never heard about this. Space exploration really has dropped off the map news/media wise.
abeppu 1 days ago [-]
April 1 is an in interesting choice for a big event that will be news if it goes well and bigger news if it goes badly
jedberg 1 days ago [-]
They don't really have a choice. The launch window is small and they either make it or they don't.
philipwhiuk 1 days ago [-]
There is a window on the 2nd. But you don't aim for the second half of the launch period and hope you make it, you aim for the start to allow time to resolve issues without waiting for the next window (which is the end of the month).
echelon 1 days ago [-]
What factors are there for the lunar launch window?
It can't be weather, here, right? That's too far ahead.
Is it perigee?
If this window is missed, when is the next one?
jedberg 1 days ago [-]
The position of the moon relative to the earth and the sun. The windows are about a month apart.
ohyoutravel 1 days ago [-]
Well at least there’s a 50% probability of success
hypeatei 1 days ago [-]
"April fools, your space shuttle just disintegrated!"
mikkupikku 1 days ago [-]
Can't they just schedule it for March 32nd?
AverageSavage 1 days ago [-]
They are snip hunting that day.
useftmly 22 hours ago [-]
[dead]
la3lma 1 days ago [-]
Surely they are joking?
pfdietz 1 days ago [-]
The whole program is a joke.
AverageSavage 1 days ago [-]
Operation: Sike! is a go! ;)
edgyquant 1 days ago [-]
“As early as April 1” is a weird way to describe something that is two months behind schedule
NitpickLawyer 1 days ago [-]
That's probably a "layman's terms" translation of a more technical term NET April 1, which would be "Not Earlier Than" and is widely used in the industry.
StableAlkyne 1 days ago [-]
Being a few months behind schedule is forgivable for human space flight.
If a SpaceX Falcon blows up on the pad, that's one thing. It's expensive but they accept that risk to move faster. At least they gain knowledge of what failed, to do better next time.
You can't apply that mentality once a human is piloting it however. That's how you get Columbia, Challenger, or Apollo 1.
philipwhiuk 1 days ago [-]
> If a SpaceX Falcon blows up on the pad, that's one thing. It's expensive but they accept that risk to move faster. At least they gain knowledge of what failed, to do better next time.
Assuming it's not carrying a SpaceX Crew Dragon with crew onboard ;)
Also, it's a bit of a dated metaphor. Falcon 9 is by most accounts, now the most reliable rocket in history and is pretty design-locked. The modern metaphor is SpaceX Starship :)
bcraven 1 days ago [-]
As it's currently March, April seems very close to me. I didn't know there was a moon flight planned so this is a great headline to me.
bombcar 1 days ago [-]
I didn't even know we were within years of putting people around the moon, so I was surprised!
throwawaymobule 1 days ago [-]
Scott Manley does a roundup video every two or so weeks called 'deep space updates' that I suggest watching.
The start is all rocket launches, which gives a good idea of how much is happening.
dylan604 1 days ago [-]
Seeing how the last test at the beginning of Feb found hydrogen leaks, it does sound very early to me
tekla 1 days ago [-]
Why? They fixed it.
dylan604 1 days ago [-]
In a month is why. It seems if it was fixed that fast it was easy to find. If it was so easy to find, why was it not found. These are the types of questions that seem to make NASA push things further than just a month. So again, it seems fast to me
tekla 1 days ago [-]
It feels fast to you because you don't know what happened, and you are asking questions that have been answered by NASA already in public.
It was easy to find because they knew what valve was leaking.
It was not found beforehand because they don't have the ability to do the tanking test without rolling it to the launch pad and its very hard to know how a system responds to liquid hydrogen.
Starship 3 first launch will be in April as well https://www.caller.com/story/news/local/2026/03/11/spacex-st...
----
I know there are readily-observible NASA debris scattered across the moon. Heck, it's even likely that we've already sent a few Americans up there before (perhaps not as early as '69, but eventually... yeah.sure.fine.).
But why go, even if "again?" Why even have gone in the first place (outside of USSA Space Race posturing)?
What is the point? Even if we discovered the goldliest of oils, deep within moonmantle, it would be absolutely cost-prohibitive to transport commercially between our masses. Perhaps the only use I can think is nuclear waste/bombs (for disposal/testing).
----
equally stupid == Mars gaiabomb
----
So again I'll ask: WHY?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_Flight_Test-1
It can't be weather, here, right? That's too far ahead.
Is it perigee?
If this window is missed, when is the next one?
If a SpaceX Falcon blows up on the pad, that's one thing. It's expensive but they accept that risk to move faster. At least they gain knowledge of what failed, to do better next time.
You can't apply that mentality once a human is piloting it however. That's how you get Columbia, Challenger, or Apollo 1.
Assuming it's not carrying a SpaceX Crew Dragon with crew onboard ;)
Also, it's a bit of a dated metaphor. Falcon 9 is by most accounts, now the most reliable rocket in history and is pretty design-locked. The modern metaphor is SpaceX Starship :)
The start is all rocket launches, which gives a good idea of how much is happening.
It was easy to find because they knew what valve was leaking.
It was not found beforehand because they don't have the ability to do the tanking test without rolling it to the launch pad and its very hard to know how a system responds to liquid hydrogen.