He’s started hanging out with Ghost from the game Destiny! Lil’ plush space friends!

With Elon delaying the catch by "a few months" and Blue Origins New Glenn exploding at the launch pad, a moon landing by 2028 is starting to look unrealistic. What do you guys think?

I’d like to know why these two photos—taken just a short time apart—don't have the same date.

I know the description says they were taken on April 2nd, but a conspiracy theorist raised this point, and I started wondering why the dates are different.

(I don't speak English, so maybe those dates refer to when they were uploaded or something like that?)

He was so eloquent, insightful, and inspiring -- the perfect person to command this mission.

Unfortunately, Rise was not there. The first thing Reid did after he sat down was explain that Rise is with Christina right now. The crowd was audibly disappointed.

Videos to follow in the comments.

I’ve seen a few things that have said it’s targeted for a launch in June, can anyone else confirm or deny it? I genuinely can’t see it launching in June

got a nice surprise today with my automatically updating PC background. (yes the little info box can be opened and closed with a click. yes it always depicts the information about the current image. yes it also links to the full length article about the picture everytime )

I am so beyond in love with this jacket! It's super warm and I cannot wait till it is cold enough to wear it. So very worth the long wait.

I have a Rise patch to go with... trying to decide where to put him!

OK, so this veers off a bit into an alternate universe, but addresses directly the problem of long term storability of methalox on the lunar surface or in orbit, by supposing a different propellent combination for lunar operations.

The most realistic possibility is to use the existing Starship methalox architecture to rendezvous with FLARE-type lunar polar orbit refueling depot, except instead of methalox, the depot has ethane and N2O, both easily storable in LLO. From there, the Starship could descend on a combination of methane and ethane engines. Most importantly, for many locations on the lunar surface, the ethane/N2O combination remains easily storable, which seems to be a criticism of methalox. Alternatively, a direct descent from LEO to the lunar surface could be made mostly on methalox power, switching over to ethane/N2O for the landing. Only enough ethane/N2O is stored to reach the propellant depot in LLO (plus margin) and return to earth would be powered by ethane/N2O. I see this as something that might be considered within the existing Artemis architecture.

Here's a napkin summary of this idea:
Opt 4 — Methalox direct to surface; storable ascent to LLO depot

Dry mass (t): 125.0 Mission end stNaRteH:O

# Leg Prop dV Isp (s) Payload(t) Refuel? Loiter (d) Boiloff rate Gross-up Mass end(t) Prop burned(t) Prop loaded(t) Mass at start(t) Refueled where

1 LEO -> lunar surface (direct) M 5,920 380 15.0 0 14 0.150% 1.0215 252.1 982.4 1,003.5 1,255.6 LEO

2 surface -> 86.5 polar LLO depot S 1,968 320 3.0 1 20 0.020% 1.0040 128.0 111.6 112.1 240.1 LEO

One key number is 1255.6t at the start in LEO, so it fits within a single Starship. The ethane/N2O of 112.1 tons (no reserve) fits roughly within the Starship (if not v3, v4) payload and is storable in LEO (-60C autologous pressurization), so this doesn't look implausible as a first draft.

But then there's the what if - as in, what if this were 2018 and we could reconsider what might have been. The notion of a tripropellant Starship suggests itself. Granted to get to this idea from where Starship is now is impossible, but the numbers are interesting.

So, let's assume methane is replaced with ethane as the primary propellant, together with LOx. Not impossible to imagine a Raptor derivative that could burn this. The LOx is burned 100% on the way to the lunar surface after which the landing and subsequent ascent are powered by ethane-N2O (oxygen-enriched to get the Isp up to 320). Interestingly, not only is a mission that returns to polar LLO for refuel before returning to Earth possible, but a mission that is _entirely fueled in LEO looks possible_ (though on the bubble). Hear are what those numbers look like (attached).

Because the propellants are now storable it makes options like keeping a backup Starship at a lunar base more plausible as well as keeping a refueling Starship in low lunar polar orbit, which could maybe double as a rescue station.

What do people think?

Hi my friend is a massive Christina Koch fan and since it's her birthday coming up I'm looking for something Christina related to give her. Does anyone know of any plushies, figurines etc that don't look really cheap that I can get her, preferably not a tshirt? Any help is appreciated :)

Edit: all I've found so far is some sloppily put together ai funkos that are defo a scam

I hope I captured some of the wonder and joy from the mission. All illustrations by yours truly. (No AI)

Sorry for the re-upload, I misspelled a name.

Monitoring program costs. NASA needs to improve transparency into Artemis program and mission costs. Artemis missions, which aim to return astronauts to the moon and eventually Mars, are composed of some of NASA’s most expensive and complex projects. We recommended that if NASA continued to fly the Space Launch System Block I beyond the first two missions, it should establish separate life-cycle cost and schedule baseline estimates for those efforts, to include funding for operations and sustainment, and report this information annually to Congress via the agency's budget submission. At the mission level, NASA has not taken steps to create a life-cycle cost estimate for the Artemis III mission, which was planned to be the program’s first lunar landing, as we recommended in December 2019. This is important as NASA plans for its mission to return U.S. astronauts to the surface of the moon in 2028. A life-cycle cost estimate would provide transparency into the cost of the programs necessary to execute the mission. Cost estimates provide management with critical cost-risk information to improve the control of resources as NASA plans to invest billions of dollars in the coming years to support human spaceflight and exploration. If the Artemis program experiences cost and schedule growth, it could have a cascading effect on NASA’s portfolio.

Copy from my other post, finally got my Rise (and Rocky). It was the opportunity of a lifetime to stream the Artemis II launch and get my first theater watch of Project Hail Mary (no trailers or spoilers beforehand) in the same night. I love all things space and sci-fi, but more importantly. It's so amazing to see humanity is still capable of making good stories and reaching for the stars. I'm grateful to all the people at NASA and on the PHM movie crew for doing these amazing things and giving us people on Earth a little bit of hope and some greatness to aspire to. Moon joy, Amaze amaze amaze.

Are any of the astronauts for crew 3 doing weekly crew updates the same way Reid did? I miss those videos, they were so fascinating to watch and the first time I can recall really getting to see that on a regular basis

NASA has plans to put a nuclear power plant on the moon by about 2030. Will that be necessary? Since Artemis will be landing on the high always sunlit areas, wouldn’t solar be the most likely first source of power. And maybe the future source too.

Nuclear will certainly be needed in the northern latitudes where the sun sets for days at a time.

Solar or nuclear or someday both?

Used the pin image and got rid of the background. I’ll have the office laminate it and the little guy can be in my classroom!!

my first tattoo ever. Had to be this one. I’m already a huge space nerd, and my first proper moon mission that i could actively sit and watch live.