SPACE - random thread about space stuff

[jztemple2]

NASA responds to Navajo Nation's request to delay private mission placing human remains on the moon

In a pre-launch science briefing on Thursday (Jan. 4), NASA representatives addressed the controversy over the payloads containing human remains being included on the mission, noting that the mission is a private, commercial effort and that NASA has merely contracted for its scientific payloads to be transported to the moon. "We don't have the framework for telling them what they can and can't fly," said Chris Culbert, Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program manager at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. "The approval process doesn't run through NASA for commercial missions."

Culbert added that the private companies launching payloads as a part of the CLPS program "don't have to clear those payloads" before launch. "So these are truly commercial missions, and it's up to them to sell what they sell," Culbert said.

Joel Kearns, deputy associate administrator for exploration at the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters, acknowledged that these commercial missions could lead to further controversies.

"With these new opportunities and new ways of doing business, we recognize that some non-NASA commercial payloads can be a cause for concern to some communities," Kearns said. "And those communities may not understand that these missions are commercial and they're not U.S. government missions, like the ones that we're talking about."

Kearns added that some of these commercial payloads could even be used for things like advertising, which could lead to further public outcry.

However, Kearns pointed out that these early missions will allow NASA and other agencies to learn more about how to regulate access to the moon going forward. "We're going to learn through these first landings, and the follow-up landings, all the different issues or concerns that are generated by that. And I'm sure that, as time goes by, there are going to be changes to how we view this, or how industry itself maybe sets up standards or guidelines about how they're going to proceed."

The U.S. government has formed an interagency group to review the Navajo Nation's objections and request for delay, agency representatives added during the briefing.

Celestis [the company who is responsible for the *deep space* memorial payload], for its part, does not find those objections to be substantive.

"The regulatory process that approves space missions does not consider compliance with the tenets of any religion in the process for obvious reasons. No individual religion can or should dictate whether a space mission should be approved," Celestis CEO and co-founder Charles Chafer said in an emailed statement to Space.com.

"No one, and no religion, owns the moon, and, were the beliefs of the world's multitude of religions considered, it’s quite likely that no missions would ever be approved," Chafer added. "Simply, we do not and never have let religious beliefs dictate humanity’s space efforts — there is not and should not be a religious test."

UPDATED to reflect that Celestis is responsible for the deep space memorial payload. Elysium Space is using the Peregrine lander to bring human remains to the Moon.

[jztemple2]

Vulcan Centaur has moved to the pad

[Hrdina]

While I am in agreement with the response from Celestis, the ULA CERT-1 mission page says that the mission "will deliver the Astrobotic Peregrine commercial lunar lander into a highly elliptical orbit more than 220,000 miles (360,000 km) above Earth to intercept the Moon and will carry a Celestis Memorial Spaceflight Payload into deep space."

If that last bit is true, I don't understand the responses from Celestis and NASA.

[jztemple2]

While I am in agreement with the response from Celestis, the ULA CERT-1 mission page says that the mission "will deliver the Astrobotic Peregrine commercial lunar lander into a highly elliptical orbit more than 220,000 miles (360,000 km) above Earth to intercept the Moon and will carry a Celestis Memorial Spaceflight Payload into deep space."

If that last bit is true, I don't understand the responses from Celestis and NASA.

There are two memorial payloads, one going to deep space, but one is going to be landed on the Moon. Apologies for not making that clear in my previous post, I have since updated it.

Of the two memorial companies, only Elysium Space will potentially deliver a symbolic portion of remains to the surface of the moon as one of their services, with Celestis' precious cargo pushing out beyond the Earth-moon system into interstellar deep space to establish the most remote human presence among the stars.

[raydude]

In a pre-launch science briefing on Thursday (Jan. 4), NASA representatives addressed the controversy over the payloads containing human remains being included on the mission, noting that the mission is a private, commercial effort and that NASA has merely contracted for its scientific payloads to be transported to the moon. "We don't have the framework for telling them what they can and can't fly," said Chris Culbert, Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program manager at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. "The approval process doesn't run through NASA for commercial missions."

Culbert added that the private companies launching payloads as a part of the CLPS program "don't have to clear those payloads" before launch. "So these are truly commercial missions, and it's up to them to sell what they sell," Culbert said.

Joel Kearns, deputy associate administrator for exploration at the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters, acknowledged that these commercial missions could lead to further controversies.

"With these new opportunities and new ways of doing business, we recognize that some non-NASA commercial payloads can be a cause for concern to some communities," Kearns said. "And those communities may not understand that these missions are commercial and they're not U.S. government missions, like the ones that we're talking about."

The cynical part of me wonders whether NASA at least vets the total weight of all payloads vs capability of the launch vehicle. I hope I'm wrong but part of me feels this is going to be part of a bigger lesson that "one must account for all payload weights when launching". That goes for both the private companies providing the launch vehicle and the ones providing the rovers/landers.

[jztemple2]

I imagine that specifics like payload weights and other parameters are coordinated by the launch vehicle company and NASA as that is their area of concern. I also think that NASA does have some say in the payloads from the aspect of public relations, say not allowing the ashes of some neo-Nazi to be flown to the Moon

[raydude]

I imagine that specifics like payload weights and other parameters are coordinated by the launch vehicle company and NASA as that is their area of concern. I also think that NASA does have some say in the payloads from the aspect of public relations, say not allowing the ashes of some neo-Nazi to be flown to the Moon

My bad, I read the article too fast and thought Certis ULA was a different company from ULA. ULA is experienced. My misunderstanding thought that Certis ULA was a brand new company and that this is their first rodeo. On the other hand I still note that one CLPS company neglected to inform us that their rover carried some additional weight in the form of an undisclosed instrument. This was only discovered by our engineers after the fact - so its entirely possible that, since this is the first rodeo for many of these payload companies, their payloads will go south because they don't fully appreciate how hard it is to make things space certified.

[jztemple2]

On the other hand I still note that one CLPS company neglected to inform us that their rover carried some additional weight in the form of an undisclosed instrument.

That could be concerning. How did you find out about the additional weight?

[raydude]

On the other hand I still note that one CLPS company neglected to inform us that their rover carried some additional weight in the form of an undisclosed instrument.

That could be concerning. How did you find out about the additional weight?

Scuttlebut.

[jztemple2]

Vulcan to launch Peregrine lunar lander on inaugural flight. Lots of space goodness in the article, like this:

[jztemple2]

Live coverage: Watch as the first Vulcan rocket launches commercial moon lander from Cape Canaveral

[em2nought]

Speaking of payloads, I wonder if fluffy social influencers could get a second seat free on a ride into space like they can on Southwest?

[Zaxxon]

Sweet!

https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/17 ... 79189?s=20

[jztemple2]

It's good that Vulcan was successful, but... Peregrine lander suffers propulsion ‘anomaly,’ Moon landing seemingly unlikely

Astrobotic's history-making private lunar lander has experienced an anomaly on its way to the moon.

The Astrobotic Peregrine moon lander launched into an elliptical orbit in the wee hours of today atop the a Vulcan Centaur rocket built by the United Launch Alliance (ULA). The mission is the maiden voyage for ULA's new launch vehicle, and the Peregrine lander has the potential to be the first private mission ever to touch down safely on the lunar surface.

However, the lander suffered an anomaly just hours into voyage that may threaten its entire moon-landing mission, according to the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Astrobotic. It was expected to land on the moon on Feb. 23.

"After successful propulsion systems activation, Peregrine entered a safe operational state. Unfortunately, an anomaly then occurred, which prevented Astrobotic from achieving a stable sun-pointing orientation," the company wrote in a statement released seven hours after the mission's 2:18 a.m. EST (0718 GMT) liftoff from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. "The team is responding in real time as the situation unfolds and will be providing updates as more data is obtained and analyzed."

And in a later update:

Update 1 p.m. ET: Astrobotic has issued a fourth update on the anomaly its Peregrine lunar lander is experiencing and it appears the mission will not go as planned after all.

"Unfortunately, it appears the failure within the propulsion system is causing a critical loss of propellant," the company wrote. "The team is working to try and stabilize this loss, but given the situation, we have prioritized maximizing the science and data we can capture. We are currently assessing what alternative mission profiles may be feasible at this time."

[raydude]

Well, Astrobotic has another chance later this year with the Viper rover. Fingers crossed, as my co-worker has a stake in that one.

[jztemple2]

1st photo from crippled private Peregrine moon lander holds clue to anomaly

Astrobotic's troubled Peregrine moon lander has snapped its first photo in the final frontier, and the image holds clues about what happened to the spacecraft.

Peregrine lifted off early Monday morning (Jan. 8) on the first-ever mission of United Launch Alliance's new Vulcan Centaur rocket. The historic launch went well, but Peregrine ran into problems shortly after deploying from the rocket's Centaur upper stage.

The lander failed to orient itself properly to face the sun to charge its solar panels, an issue that Astrobotic thinks stemmed from an anomaly in Peregrine's propulsion system. That hypothesis was bolstered by the first image the lander snapped in space, which the company shared today via X (formerly known as Twitter).

"The camera utilized is mounted atop a payload deck and shows Multi-Layer Insulation (MLI) in the foreground," Astrobotic wrote in the X post that featured the photo. "The disturbance of the MLI is the first visual clue that aligns with our telemetry data pointing to a propulsion system anomaly."

I think it was the curse of the Navajo, but that's just me

[Kraken]

Time keeps on slippin'

NASA's second Artemis mission is expected to be pushed beyond its planned late-2024 target after issues were uncovered with the Lockheed Martin-built (LMT.N) Orion crew capsule's batteries during vibration tests, two of the people said. The batteries will need to be replaced.

Launching Artemis II this year was always considered iffy, so this news isn't a big surprise (although the specific issue with the batteries is). But this is news to me:

Senior NASA officials in recent months have been mulling plans to move the inaugural Artemis astronaut landing to the fourth mission, giving SpaceX and other contractors more practice before making the first such landing in half a century.

NASA officials presented that option to the agency's senior leadership last month, but it could not be determined if it chose that path. It was also unclear what the new target dates for the initial Artemis missions would be.

If the first landing slips to Artemis IV, we're probably bumping up against 2030. Removing Starship from the Artemis III equation would give that mission a better shot at meeting its 2027 date, but I wonder what its mission profile will become. A reprise of Artemis II? The hardware is far too expensive to support a placeholder mission that doesn't move the story forward.

[jztemple2]

If the first landing slips to Artemis IV, we're probably bumping up against 2030. Removing Starship from the Artemis III equation would give that mission a better shot at meeting its 2027 date, but I wonder what its mission profile will become. A reprise of Artemis II? The hardware is far too expensive to support a placeholder mission that doesn't move the story forward.

That's some good info there. This affects our local economy of course, thousands of people here work either directly on Artemis or indirectly as support contractors, not to mention the trickle down effects. Moving the moon landing to Artemis IV probably keeps folks here employed for a couple more years before some hard decisions have to be made.

[The Meal]

Vibe testing battery assemblies is always a bit sphincter clenching for me. There isn’t a lot which comes through my labs that can explode into an energized fireball (prop testing is done sans propellant). Because of bat testing, I’ve got a fancy yellow fire extinguisher close at the ready — hope I never need to use it. (Both my labs also have multiple egress points, and those are plan #1 for me.)

Our battery assemblies are built in-house, and there are not a lot in the way of dynamic responses there. Hard to imagine what sort of anomaly developed for Artemis II.

[Isgrimnur]

Someone stir the tanks?

[Zaxxon]

https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1744795 ... 75212?s=20

[jztemple2]

n order to safely carry out our upcoming #Artemis missions to the Moon with astronauts, we are now targeting September 2025 for Artemis II and September 2026 for Artemis III.

As a space program career person, I tend to look askance at anyone who uses safety as a reason to slip the schedule. They moved the original dates because they couldn't make them. But then I'm not a politician

[jztemple2]

Good article on the specifics of the Artemis slip.

First astronaut missions to the Moon since 1972 delayed due to heat shield questions, hardware readiness

My italics

A quartet of astronauts will have to wait until next year before their voyage around the Moon. In a robust update on Tuesday afternoon, NASA leadership announced that the next two missions in the Artemis program, and the first featuring astronauts, will each shift back by nearly a year.

The Artemis 2 mission, which was due to liftoff from the Kennedy Space Center this November, will instead launch no earlier than September 2025. The Artemis 3 mission, which will still feature the first crewed Moon landing since 1972, is now pushed to September 2026 at the earliest.

“As we remind everybody at every turn, safety is our top priority,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “And though challenges are clearly ahead, our teams are making incredible progress.”

The delay of the Artemis 3 mission was forecast in November in a report to Congress from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). That report suggested that landing back on the Moon was likely to actually happen in early 2027 “if development took as long as the average for NASA major projects.”

There are a few main items that are causing the first crewed missions of the Artemis program to shuffle back from their planned launch dates. There is the matter of some outstanding unknowns regarding the heat shield that protects the Orion crew capsule, there is some hardware that needs to be removed and replaced on Orion and the items needed to explore the Moon’s surface, namely spacesuits and the lander, are both behind schedule.

[Kraken]

n order to safely carry out our upcoming #Artemis missions to the Moon with astronauts, we are now targeting September 2025 for Artemis II and September 2026 for Artemis III.

As a space program career person, I tend to look askance at anyone who uses safety as a reason to slip the schedule. They moved the original dates because they couldn't make them. But then I'm not a politician

Not flying is a whole lot safer than flying.

The delay of the Artemis 3 mission was forecast in November in a report to Congress from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). That report suggested that landing back on the Moon was likely to actually happen in early 2027 “if development took as long as the average for NASA major projects.”

I was momentarily confused when NASA said A3 was pushed back to '26 because I had already assumed that '27 is aspirational. Try to keep up with the rest of the class, NASA.

[jztemple2]

Private Peregrine moon lander's fuel leak continues to slow

Astrobotic's Peregrine moon lander continues to push its inevitable demise further into the future.

Peregrine suffered a serious propellant leak, apparently caused by a ruptured oxidizer tank, shortly after separating from its Vulcan Centaur rocket on Jan. 8. The anomaly will prevent the probe from making a historic lunar landing attempt next month, but mission team members aren't throwing in the towel.

Indeed, they've managed to power up the 10 Peregrine payloads that require juice, and all nine designed to communicate with the lander have done so. (Peregrine carries a total of 20 payloads, but 10 of them are passive.)

And they continue working to extend Peregrine's operational life, an effort that has met with considerable success. Shortly after the leak occurred, for example, Astrobotic estimated that Peregrine had about 40 hours' worth of propellant left.

That deadline has long since passed. And, in the company's latest mission update, issued on X today (Jan. 12), Astrobotic said the lander has enough fuel to operate for another 52 hours or so — "and there is growing optimism that Peregrine could survive much longer than the current estimate."

[jztemple2]

Ailing Peregrine moon lander on path to crash into Earth, Astrobotic says

Peregrine launched toward the moon on Jan. 8 atop a United Launch Alliance Vulcan Centaur rocket, but suffered a critical fuel leak shortly after separating from the booster. That loss of fuel doomed Peregrine's chances to soft-land on the moon next month, according to its builder Astrobotic. While the company has been fighting to keep the lander alive as long as possible, the probe's days are definitely numbered due to its trajectory, Astrobotic said.

"Our analysis efforts have been challenging due to the propellant leak, which have been adding uncertainty to predictions of the vehicle's trajectory," Astrobotic wrote in an update on X (formerly Twitter) on Saturday. "Our latest assessment now shows the spacecraft is on a path towards Earth, where it will likely burn up in Earth's atmosphere."

Astrobotic did not include an expected date for when Peregrine could slam into Earth's atmosphere, though the Pittsburgh-based company's engineers continue work to salvage the spacecraft.

"The team is currently assessing options and we will update as soon as we are able," Astrobotic wrote in the update. On Sunday, Peregrine was about 242,000 miles (389,000 kilometers) from Earth, just beyond the orbit of the moon, which circles Earth at about 238,000 miles (384,400 km).

[raydude]

I've asked around my work about why NASA is spending CLPS money on these no name companies that don't have any real space experience and telling them to shoot for the moon. I've been told its like what was done in the Apollo days when they just wanted to get to the moon as quickly as possible, so they're getting private companies to submit ideas and seeing what works.

I wonder if it will backfire though as I've already seen on social media that folks are blaming NASA for the failure. Even though NASA only has instruments on board and didn't build the lander nor has a hand in flight ops. I can foresee a future where a few Congress-critters who want to make a name for themselves start criticizing NASA after a bunch of CLPS mission failures.

[jztemple2]

https://twitter.com/ZachCoveyTV/status/ ... w">January

[jztemple2]

Oh dear, how much is this going to raise our taxes? US must beat China back to the moon, Congress tells NASA

The delays in NASA's Artemis moon program are making some members of Congress nervous.

Last week, NASA announced that it's now targeting September 2025 for its Artemis 2 mission, which will send four astronauts around the moon, and September 2026 for Artemis 3, which will put boots on Earth's nearest neighbor for the first time in more than half a century.

These new Artemis launch dates represent delays of about a year for each flight. The rightward push was spurred by the need to conduct more studies of key Artemis hardware, such as the heat shield of NASA's Orion crew capsule, which didn't perform quite as expected during the uncrewed Artemis 1 mission in late 2022.

The U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Science, Space and Technology held a hearing about the new Artemis plan today (Jan. 17), and multiple members voiced concern about the slippage.

"I remind my colleagues that we are not the only country interested in sending humans to the moon," Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) said in his opening remarks.

"The Chinese Communist Party is actively soliciting international partners for a lunar mission — a lunar research station — and has stated its ambition to have human astronauts on the surface by 2030," he added. "The country that lands first will have the ability to set a precedent for whether future lunar activities are conducted with openness and transparency, or in a more restricted manner."

Several other committee members stressed that the new moon race is part of a broader competition with China, and that coming in second could imperil U.S. national security.

"It's no secret that China has a goal to surpass the United States by 2045 as global leaders in space. We can't allow this to happen," Rich McCormick (R-GA) said during the hearing. "I think the leading edge that we have in space technology will protect the United States — not just the economy, but technologies that can benefit humankind."

And Bill Posey (R-FL) referred to space as the "ultimate military high ground," saying that whoever leads in the final frontier "will control the destiny of this Earth."

And, interestingly, this from witness Mike Griffin, former NASA Administrator (2005-2009)

Griffin doesn't share that optimism. Indeed, he is very down on the Artemis program as it's currently constructed.

"In my judgment, the Artemis program is excessively complex, unrealistically priced, compromises crew safety, poses very high mission risk of completion and is highly unlikely to be completed in a timely manner, even if successful," Griffin said during today's hearing.

Those perceived shortcomings are a big deal, given the importance of the current moon race "in the world of global power politics," he stressed.

"For the United States and its partners not to be on the moon when others are on the moon is unacceptable," Griffin said. "We need a program that is consistent with that theme. Artemis is not that program. We need to restart it, not keep it on track."

[Kraken]

Heh, I almost posted that in the "US space policy" thread in R&P last night, but decided against it because that thread never gets much traction.

While I agree that Artemis is unsustainably expensive, at least until the ISS is retired, I can't imagine how "restart it" will be quicker or cheaper.

[jztemple2]

While I agree that Artemis is unsustainably expensive, at least until the ISS is retired, I can't imagine how "restart it" will be quicker or cheaper.

Agreed. But I also think Congress (and others) is trying to sell us that beating the Chinese to the moon provides better national security. If we want to provide better space security, to me it is found at low earth orbit up to geosynchronous, not on the moon. And of course ground based ASATs and sensors.

[Kraken]

Ars has a whole lot of context and detail about Griffin's remarks. Former NASA admin hates Artemis, wants to party like it's 2008.

In Griffin’s case, he would return the country to the cozy confines of 2008, just before the era of commercial space took off and when he was at the height of his power before being removed as NASA administrator. Griffin's plan for an accelerated lunar mission, in short, calls for:

Two launches of the Space Launch System Block II rocket
A Centaur III upper stage
An Orion spacecraft
A two-stage, storable-propellant lunar lander

This architecture would support a crew of four people on the lunar surface for seven days, Griffin said. "The straightforward approach outlined here could put US-led expeditions on the Moon beginning in 2029, given bold action by Congress and expeditious decision-making and firm contractor direction by NASA," he concluded.

With this plan, Griffin is essentially returning NASA to the Constellation Program that Griffin helped create in 2005 and 2006. The spacecraft (Orion) is the same, and the rocket (SLS Block II instead of Ares V) is similar. The proposed lunar lander looks somewhat like the Altair lunar lander. He is trying to put the band back together, relying on Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman to get astronauts back to the Moon in a quick and efficient manner.

A whole lot of words skewering that idea follow.

Do people mind if we discuss space politics here, or should I start a New Space Race thread in R&P?

[jztemple2]

Do people mind if we discuss space politics here, or should I start a New Space Race thread in R&P?

I wouldn't mind talking the New Space Race here, but yeah it could spill over into politics. If you want to start a new thread over at R&P, post a link here. I saw that story but it's not really going to keep my interest, I'm more of a hardware type of guy

[Kraken]

Do people mind if we discuss space politics here, or should I start a New Space Race thread in R&P?

I wouldn't mind talking the New Space Race here, but yeah it could spill over into politics. If you want to start a new thread over at R&P, post a link here. I saw that story but it's not really going to keep my interest, I'm more of a hardware type of guy

Space politics don't often get incendiary, so let's stay here unless they do. I haven't seen anyone scream that Biden is losing the moon race to the Chinese. Although that Griffin fellow is kinda suspect.

[malchior]

JAXA's SLIM lunar lander is in the middle of it's landing sequence (est. land at 10:20 EST). Wishing them 幸運 (good luck) as they hopefully complete a precision lunar landing.



Edit: They appear to have successfully landed on a 15-degree slope (as desired) and the lander appears to be still sending telemetry! But they haven't confirmed landing yet.

Edit 2: They confirmed landing and data is being received. Unfortunately the battery on the craft isn't charging at the moment. Perhaps due to an attitude problem for the solar cells or some other component issue.

[jztemple2]

Oh dear... Japan lands on the Moon but power issues cast doubt on SLIM’s survival

A Japanese lander appears to have achieved a soft touchdown on the Moon’s surface but is currently unable to generate electricity from onboard solar cells. Running only on internal battery power, controllers are working to balance the recording and downloading of data, utilising the remaining battery life to maximum effect. The reason for the lack of electrical generation is not currently known, but officials report that the solar cells do not appear to be damaged and that all other systems are working as designed. There is some optimism that sunlight may yet reach the solar cells and recharge the batteries, but this is by no means guaranteed. The mission has been officially marked as reaching its minimum success levels at this time, subject to further data analysis.

[raydude]

From the article Former NASA admin hates Artemis, wants to party like it's 2008.

He is trying to put the band back together, relying on Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman to get astronauts back to the Moon in a quick and efficient manner.

No, no, and no. I don't for a minute believe that the likes of Boeing, Lock Mart, and Northrup will be cheaper, faster, better. These companies are the epitome of the "idiot tax", where their asking price for contracts goes toward paying for the multitudes of idiots on their payroll along with the few people who actually know what they're doing.

In my humble opinion.

edited to remove extra quote keyword and properly reference the quote

[raydude]

While I agree that Artemis is unsustainably expensive, at least until the ISS is retired, I can't imagine how "restart it" will be quicker or cheaper.

Agreed. But I also think Congress (and others) is trying to sell us that beating the Chinese to the moon provides better national security. If we want to provide better space security, to me it is found at low earth orbit up to geosynchronous, not on the moon. And of course ground based ASATs and sensors.

I agree. Plus it's not like the old space race, where it was for prestige. China won't stop funding their manned space program just because we get to the moon (again) first. They'll keep going even after Griffin's proposed stunt, until they have a functioning base on the moon. Meanwhile we'll have wasted treasure just so we can say we were first to put boots on the ground again.

[Kraken]

He is trying to put the band back together, relying on Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman to get astronauts back to the Moon in a quick and efficient manner.

No, no, and no. I don't for a minute believe that the likes of Boeing, Lock Mart, and Northrup will be cheaper, faster, better. These companies are the epitome of the "idiot tax", where their asking price for contracts goes toward paying for the multitudes of idiots on their payroll along with the few people who actually know what they're doing.

In my humble opinion.

edited to remove extra quote keyword

(Just for the record, that's from me quoting Ars Technica...not my own words.)

[raydude]

He is trying to put the band back together, relying on Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman to get astronauts back to the Moon in a quick and efficient manner.

No, no, and no. I don't for a minute believe that the likes of Boeing, Lock Mart, and Northrup will be cheaper, faster, better. These companies are the epitome of the "idiot tax", where their asking price for contracts goes toward paying for the multitudes of idiots on their payroll along with the few people who actually know what they're doing.

In my humble opinion.

edited to remove extra quote keyword

(Just for the record, that's from me quoting Ars Technica...not my own words.)

Sorry about that. That's where the extra quote keyword came from. I edited my post to properly attribute the quote to the article.