NASA will return the Artemis 2 lunar program's SLS rocket to the launch pad.

After several weeks of forced break in the new lunar mission, NASA announced its intentions to return missiles The Space Launch System (SLS) is on the launch pad. NASA officials say the tentative date for installing the rocket and the Orion spacecraft on Pad 39B is March 19.

The rocket launch itself is now scheduled for April 1st – the first April “window” for an optimal flight to the Moon.

As a reminder, earlier in February, NASA announced a timeline adjustment for the new lunar mission. The reason was problems with the rocket's fuel system, which were discovered during the final stages of launch preparation. It is believed that American specialists have resolved these issues.

The Artemis II mission can now launch to the Moon on the following dates: from April 1st to 6th inclusive, or April 30th. NASA and the Artemis II program office have provided the corresponding calendar.

As a reminder, the SLS rocket is currently scheduled to deliver the Orion spacecraft into lunar orbit, where it will conduct several flybys to monitor the lunar surface. Initially, the planned manned mission with astronauts landing on the Moon was scheduled for 2027, but the timeframe has now been pushed back to 2028.

Comments

[Mikhail Ivanov]

Well, now Trump will take care of the Moon and put an end to all the wars there)))

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Mikhail-Ivanov

Trump will take care of the moon

He had long since cooled towards her and had cut the budget considerably.

[Intelligence]

Quote: Puncher

He had long since cooled towards her and had cut the budget considerably.

When was that? During the first or second term?
Nothing of the sort. It was the Trump administration that restarted the lunar program. It was his administration that launched the Artemis program (Space Policy Directive) back in 2017–2019. Under his administration, NASA's budget increased by 15–20% in 2020.
Yes, the current administration tried to cut funding for some scientific programs, but precisely to speed up the lunar landing. The change in the Artemis 3 mission's goal is dictated solely by security concerns.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Intelligence

In the first or second term?

On the second

Quote: Intelligence

Yes, the current administration has tried to cut funding for some scientific programs, but precisely in order to speed up the Moon landing.

A lunar landing isn't necessary per se; the question was about a lunar base and an orbital lunar station. The lunar OS is already a non-starter, and the base is unclear. Everyone's worried they might limit themselves to a comeback of a few landings and a single lunar module for who knows what purpose. Like, here's a base, who's going to live on it?

[Intelligence]

So, by this logic, the American flag bashing wasn't really necessary. It's just unclear why it has the same effect on our patriotic zealots as a red rag to a bull.
As for what's next... Why the base, why Mars... Why technical progress at all... What real benefit will this bring today?..
It's just that humans differ from animals in that they're constantly searching for something, moving forward, and not like a monkey sitting in a tree with a banana in its hand. It's perfectly content with life and the current state of affairs. But we're human.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Intelligence

So, by this logic, the American flag-sticking was not particularly necessary.

So, SLS is already paid for, as is Orion. And the lunar modules are funded, as is the lunar spacesuit (a very expensive item). If the program is canceled, no one will get their money back.

Quote: Intelligence

Why does it affect our hurrah-patriots like a red rag to a bull?

"Patamushta nelitali."

Quote: Intelligence

What distinguishes a person from an animal is that he is constantly searching for something and moving forward.

So, for the average person, this is hard to understand. Why discover the Bering Strait and then die on an unknown island far from warmth and wine? Or sail a frail vessel across the ocean in search of a western route to China? We have to wait until they develop ships with internal combustion engines, refrigerators and watermakers, satellite navigation, radio communications... and only then... Only a tiny percentage of humanity, desperate to swim, fly, or run, heedless of safety and need, is it? And the more sophisticated the technology, the more leashes society, made up of the rest of us who would never risk it, puts on the necks of these "weak-assed" people.

[Intelligence]

Quote: Puncher

So, SLS is already paid for, as is Orion. And the lunar modules are funded, as is the lunar spacesuit (a very expensive item). If the program is canceled, no one will get their money back.

Yes, that's true. While it's clear that SLS isn't the best option, what can we do? We're in the same situation with the A5, by the way. And with the C-5, too. We can't let our staff run wild, and we can't stop production. As a result, both we and they aren't doing quite what we need to.
But they now have Isaacman, with his practical experience. There's hope that at least something will change. But for us... there's hopelessness...

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Intelligence

While there is an understanding that SLS is not the best option.

And no one has the best. The Chinese also make crap, knowing full well that it's crap, but what can you do? If you start over, you'll waste a ton of time.

Quote: Intelligence

But now they have Isaacman, with his practical experience. There's hope he'll make a difference.

Besides Isaacman, they have a half-built Starship and a nearly complete New Glenn, which no one else in the world has. This means they have the potential to redesign the lunar program for new launch vehicles, but the first stage is inevitable—it's on the SLS. So, even without Isaacman, after either Starship or New Glenn (or both) are completed, no one would have invested in the SLS.

Quote: Intelligence

And we have... hopelessness...

31 launch pads repaired. That's already a plus. The patient is more alive than dead.

[Intelligence]

That's true. And in this regard, it's telling that after Isaacman's conversation with Musk and Bezos, Musk slightly adjusted his Starship plan toward the Moon.
We'll see. If Starship can refuel orbitally, most of its problems will be solved.
As for the 31st launch... Yes, it's done quickly. But the question is different. What will happen to the pilot training after 2028/2030?

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Intelligence

As for the 31st start... Yes, promptly.

It's lucky that the USSR was thrifty.

Quote: Intelligence

What will happen to pilot training after 2028/2030?

Heh... Either he dies or he doesn't. Although I don't really believe in ROS, even in the new version.

[Intelligence]

Quote: Puncher

Although I don’t really believe in ROS even in the new version.

I don't believe it in any of them.

[slipped]

Quote: Intelligence

Quote: Puncher

Although I don’t really believe in ROS even in the new version.

I don't believe it in any of them.

It's not a matter of faith, but rather that new modules are being assembled for the new station.

[Intelligence]

And on what basis do you mention the word "modules" in the plural when referring to the assembly?
In hardware (and not even that perfect) the only one The NEM, which we've been hyped about with images and announcements since 2017. And which, by the way, was originally designed for the ISS.
The hub, gateway, and base modules exist only as electronic modules. Are you even aware that the preliminary design for the entire station has been officially completed and approved? only in March 2024What kind of assembly are we talking about?
Yes, contracting for the work and creating design documentation is underway. There is no live hardware for these modules in the workshops yet.
By the way, read the Civil Procedure Code more carefully. Just be careful. You might understand a lot.

[slipped]

Quote: Intelligence

And on what basis do you mention the word "modules" in the plural when referring to the assembly?
In hardware (and not even that perfect) the only one The NEM, which we've been hyped about with images and announcements since 2017. And which, by the way, was originally designed for the ISS.

Based on the fact that it is being assembled and will be ready in 2028. Incidentally, it will be docked to the ISS, as previously planned.

Quote: Intelligence

The nodal, gateway, and basic modules exist only in the form of an electronic device.

Yes, contracting for the work and creating design documentation is underway. There is no live hardware for these modules in the workshops yet.

There is still enough time to assemble the UUM and SM.

[Intelligence]

Quote: slipped

Based on the fact that it is being assembled and will be ready in 2028. Incidentally, it will be docked to the ISS, as previously planned.

EP - 2015. It's been around then that I've been hearing the song about it being assembled.
As for "it will be docked to the ISS," you should at least follow Mr. Bakanov's announcements. And how will the NEM, which will be ready in 2028 (and when and on what it will fly is unknown), be docked to the ISS, which "will no longer be ready" in 2028/2030, and finally give up the ghost? What the hell is it there for?

[slipped]

Quote: Intelligence

EP - 2015. It's been around then that I've been hearing the song about it being assembled.

It happens. But they only started collecting them in 2017.

Quote: Intelligence

And how will the NEM, which will be ready in 2028 (and when and on what it will fly is unknown) be docked to the ISS?

It will fly, as always planned, on a Proton-M; the rocket has been built for it. Nothing has changed in this regard. The necessary SZB tests have been completed.

Quote: Intelligence

Which in 2028/2030 will no longer be "ready" and will be closed for good? What the hell is it there for?

According to the current plan, the station's flooding will begin in 2029 and will take a year and a half. This could be delayed if the Americans don't have time to deliver their flooding truck. During this time, the NEM will remain docked to the ISS RS. It will be separated before the flooding.

[Illanatol]

Oh, it won't be long before apple trees bloom on Mars...
Yeah, it's clear as day, there won't be any manned flights to the moon. They'll just cut up the money one more time and then abandon the whole idea. Well, force majeure and all that... and the money's gone. "Study, student!"

[Proxima]

Quote: Mikhail-Ivanov

That's it, now Trump will take care of the moon

Jokes aside, NASA created a launch vehicle similar to the Saturn V. And the Americans went with the low-cost option. The first-stage engines were from the Space Shuttle, and the solid-fuel boosters were also from it. And our Buran sank into oblivion, leaving nothing behind.

[svarog77]

The SLS falls far short of the Saturn V in all respects, most importantly in payload... They didn't have a new von Braun.

[Illanatol]

"Don't say hop until you've jumped."
Sour grapes, in short.

[Terenin]

NASA will return the Artemis 2 lunar program's SLS rocket to the launch pad.

Interestingly Will Iran request the coordinates of this launch site? They also want to send a couple of their missiles there for the collection.

[Booker]

Quote: Proxima

And our Buran sank into oblivion and left nothing behind.

So the Saturn V left nothing behind. It happens.

[Intelligence]

Quote: Bookeer

So the Saturn V left nothing behind. It happens.

The Saturn V left a human footprint on the Moon. The same can't be said for our own spacecraft. That happens, too.

[Booker]

Quote: Proxima

And our Buran sank into oblivion and left nothing behind.

Incidentally, unlike the F-1 and Saturn engines, the Energia engines were used and continue to be developed. So...

[Intelligence]

Quote: Bookeer

Incidentally, unlike the F-1 and Saturn engines, the Energia engines were used and continue to be developed. So...

What development are we talking about?
The RD-0120 never saw any development. Furthermore, after the demise of MTKS, it disappeared from the news. Hydrogen is not yet a hot topic in Russia. Talk of the A5B is just that—talk.
Regarding the RD-170... While the development of the RD-180/191 variants from the original engine could certainly be called a development, Glushko's original design itself wasn't revolutionary. It had the same oxygen-rich closed-cycle design, basically the same chamber pressure, and the same turbopump architecture. Yes, the original RD-170 used an analog control system, but that's not the case now. Yes, the thrust control and some of the materials have been slightly improved. But this is more of an evolutionary development. The engine was so good for its time that even today there's not much room for improvement. But today we need different engines, for different tasks.
And the F-1... It was designed for a specific carrier and a specific task. The task was accomplished. The need for it disappeared.

[slipped]

Quote: Intelligence

What development are we talking about?

The RD-171MV rocket engine for the Soyuz-5 first stage. Several units have already been produced for flight testing in small batches. It recently completed ground testing as part of a stage. Soon, it will be transported to the launch pad, and based on the results, this new launch vehicle will be launched.

[Intelligence]

I was talking about revolutionary or evolutionary development. The forced option doesn't apply to either.

[slipped]

Quote: Intelligence

I was talking about revolutionary or evolutionary development. The forced option doesn't apply to either.

This is evolutionary development. The results are quite good, better than the previous version.

[Intelligence]

Perhaps. Perhaps a partial increase in thrust could be considered an evolutionary step.

[tralflot1832]

Who knows if Ragozin's rocket engines are sitting in a warehouse in the US, gathering dust?

[slipped]

Quote: tralflot1832

Who knows if Ragozin's rocket engines are sitting in a warehouse in the US, gathering dust?

No, they're used by the Americans in the Atlas-5 rocket. They bought a lot of them.

[opuonmed]

The estimated date for installing the rocket and the Orion spacecraft on launch pad 39B is March 19. The rocket launch itself is now scheduled for April 1—the first April "window" for optimal flight to the Moon.

Well, let's watch it live online.

[Booker]

Quote: Intelligence

And the F-1... It was designed for a specific carrier and a specific task. The task was accomplished. The need for it disappeared.

What's the specific mission? Isn't it launching some kind of payload into Earth orbit?
It has proven itself to be a brilliant machine, absolutely trouble-free in practice.
It's a mystery to me, I confess. Incidentally, I don't deny the US lunar program, so there's no misunderstanding.

[Intelligence]

No, not launching a payload into Earth orbit. The goal was set by John F. Kennedy on September 12, 1962, at Rice University: we must land on the Moon by the end of this decade.
The task was completed on July 20, 1969, and then exceeded.