Meet the astronauts who will fly to the Moon next year in NASA's historic Artemis mission

[Social Media]

NASA has announced who the next four humans will be to fly around the Moon, in the next leg of the Artemis mission launching next year.

 

They include the first woman and the first Black astronaut to travel to the Moon.

More than 50 years since the last mission to the Moon, the next team of astronauts to go includes three US astronauts and one Canadian.

 

They will be the first astronauts to fly in NASA's Orion capsule, which will be launched by NASA's most powerful rocket, the Space Launch System (SLS). 

Late last year, the SLS fired an unmanned Orion capsule to the Moon, with the spacecraft conducting a flyby and returning safely to Earth, in a hotly anticipated - and much-delayed - test flight.

[Lucky Bones]

My Soi Cat is still on the waiting list.

Apparently liquid Me-O is not her choice, nor is doing bizzy in a plastic bag.????????

[thaibeachlovers]

For those that thought it was about landing on the moon in preparation for a permanent base, this is far from that. They will just go around the moon, something that was done quite a lot decades ago when people with slide rules designed the rocket and space craft.

 

Sorry, but sounds more like a publicity stunt than anything serious, IMO.

[rabas]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

For those that thought it was about landing on the moon in preparation for a permanent base, this is far from that. They will just go around the moon, something that was done quite a lot decades ago when people with slide rules designed the rocket and space craft.

 

Sorry, but sounds more like a publicity stunt than anything serious, IMO.

It's a necessary engineering step. The first flight with no astronauts proved its systems worked correctly to return the capsule to Earth. The second, free return trajectory step will test many critical life support systems. Artemis 2 will not drop into a moon orbit thus ensuring the capsule's return in case of problems. Landing is the hard part,  Artemis 3  will use SpaceX's Starship to land people on the moon.

 

Marketing? To the max but why not?

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, rabas said:

It's a necessary engineering step. The first flight with no astronauts proved its systems worked correctly to return the capsule to Earth. The second, free return trajectory step will test many critical life support systems. Artemis 2 will not drop into a moon orbit thus ensuring the capsule's return in case of problems. Landing is the hard part,  Artemis 3  will use SpaceX's Starship to land people on the moon.

 

Marketing? To the max but why not?

??????????????

 

They already sent lots of astronauts to the moon so they have proven life support systems. Did they hide the previous information away and forget where they put it?

 

Needs to be more than marketing. Had they remained in lunar orbit for a long time mapping the surface in prep for a base I'd have no problem with it, but a fly by- puleeese.

[Chomper Higgot]

20 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

??????????????

 

They already sent lots of astronauts to the moon so they have proven life support systems. Did they hide the previous information away and forget where they put it?

 

Needs to be more than marketing. Had they remained in lunar orbit for a long time mapping the surface in prep for a base I'd have no problem with it, but a fly by- puleeese.

New systems, new test regime.

 

Just like when they build a new aircraft, they test it before putting it into service.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

New systems, new test regime.

 

Just like when they build a new aircraft, they test it before putting it into service.

Yes, but they could have built another "old one" and saved a bit of money for the craft that will be transporting the base to moon, when they get around to that.

However, it's taxpayer money so no need to economise, perhaps.

 

No need to invent new environmental systems either, given they have had a space station up there for ages.

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by thaibeachlovers

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes, but they could have built another "old one" and saved a bit of money for the craft that will be transporting the base to moon, when they get around to that.

However, it's taxpayer money so no need to economise, perhaps.

 

Perhaps they wanted to use the far more advanced modern technologies, they certainly have different funding and mission objectives:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

[RayC]

On 4/5/2023 at 3:36 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

??????????????

 

They already sent lots of astronauts to the moon so they have proven life support systems. Did they hide the previous information away and forget where they put it?

 

Needs to be more than marketing. Had they remained in lunar orbit for a long time mapping the surface in prep for a base I'd have no problem with it, but a fly by- puleeese.

It is more than marketing. This is part of a wider program to send astronauts to Mars.

https://executivegov.com/2023/03/nasa-establishes-moon-to-mars-program-office-selects-amit-kshatriya-to-lead/#:~:text=NASA has established its new,future crewed missions to Mars.

 

[KhunLA]

Largest waste of money, space exploration, aside from defense contractors.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, RayC said:

It is more than marketing. This is part of a wider program to send astronauts to Mars.

https://executivegov.com/2023/03/nasa-establishes-moon-to-mars-program-office-selects-amit-kshatriya-to-lead/#:~:text=NASA has established its new,future crewed missions to Mars.

 

IMO the entire human world is falling apart at a great rate of knots, it is claimed that climate change is going to destroy us in x number of years, inflation is ruining millions of lives, and we all face annihilation by nuclear war, so is this really a good time to be spending billions of tax payer $ on an expedition to Mars, or is it certain people's plan to establish a colony to escape to when the rest of us die in nuclear winter?

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the entire human world is falling apart at a great rate of knots, it is claimed that climate change is going to destroy us in x number of years, inflation is ruining millions of lives, and we all face annihilation by nuclear war, so is this really a good time to be spending billions of tax payer $ on an expedition to Mars, or is it certain people's plan to establish a colony to escape to when the rest of us die in nuclear winter?

Always a conspiracy.

 

Any names of these ‘certain people’?

[RayC]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the entire human world is falling apart at a great rate of knots, it is claimed that climate change is going to destroy us in x number of years, inflation is ruining millions of lives, and we all face annihilation by nuclear war, so is this really a good time to be spending billions of tax payer $ on an expedition to Mars, or is it certain people's plan to establish a colony to escape to when the rest of us die in nuclear winter?

If that is true then it is definitely more than just marketing!

[placeholder]

I've always wondered why women aren't primarily used on these missions. Or at least why size of the astronaut isn't a crucial criterion. Every kilogram saved on human weight means more cargo can be carried or fuel requirements reduced.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/7/2023 at 11:02 PM, RayC said:

If that is true then it is definitely more than just marketing!

Yes, and all paid for by the taxpayer.

[Chomper Higgot]

On 4/6/2023 at 3:40 PM, KhunLA said:

Largest waste of money, space exploration, aside from defense contractors.

He says via the means of microchip computer technology and the internet.

[RayC]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes, and all paid for by the taxpayer.

It would appear that NASA were able to present a persuasive business case, and that the US government thought the opportunity cost of funding the project was worth it.