Karin Sturm

really need to get there. Talking to some of them on a very regular basis, I can tell you: It is much more complicated than many people who have not looked into the fine details imagine. Quite often one question answered rises two new ones...

step the real experts where brought in, who also learned a lot over the years, also from ISS experience, what could be learned from there, what not, what kind of problems arouse... And they now have a realistic view on the challenges ahead - and how far we are still away from solutions and what we

If you would know how and by whom (top management) the first plans and models were created 10 to 15 years ago, you would realize that there was a lot of daydreaming going on without having a look at a lot of unconvieniant details and also a lot of lack of knowledge on different levels. Then step by

why I said the other, less political and more scientific "second line' of NASA is so important now.

I am not sure it needs partner approval if it does not affect a part of the timeline where the partner is not really involved (What I hear ESA is not very powerfull in this areas). But for sure there is one side at the moment trying to convince Congress to make short-sighted decisions. That's

As Artemis lV is now replacing Artemis III in terms of mission and timing, I think it's obvious that Gateway can't be part of it - would never have been in the realistic timeline til 28. Would think that partners care less about flight numbers and graphics than about what is really happening later.

good bipartisan access to Congress who already last year prevented a real disaster.

It was only meant to fly after the first landing - so sometime 29 earliest. So hopefully they keep it running in the background and if it then gets delayed a year or so more - so be it... By the way - NASA itself can't cancel it. Congress has to. And I hope for the "second line" NASA people with

And I also decline that it was not necessary for the Artemis architecture. If you think further than just landing and short term Moon missions, it was very important from the very beginning.

The international co-operation is part of it of course. And it was also helpful to have partners to contribute to the financing. I also agree that a cancellation would damage international relations. But my point is that the loss and damage for the future of human spaceflight would go much further.

You need the experience of the mixture of deep space radiation, zero G and very confined spaces over a long time for human and material science. Easiest and cheapest way to get via Gateway. And to keep people on the surface to build a base without a chance of a quick way out in an emergency?

Well, I talked to many human scientists, medical doctors, psycologists, material scientists, mission planners - and they all emphasize the huge importance of Gateway. People who work for ages in human spaceflight. Do you really want to discredit their knowledge and experience?

Orion has a free flight time limit of 21 days. 3.5 to the Moon, 3.5 back to Earth, 14 left. No chance of longer lasting Moon missions to build a base without Gateway. A distruction? Not to talk about Gateway as a necessary stepping stone to Mars. Without it, delay of minimum 10 years incoming

.

Not posting much currently. Just trying to save energy. But if this is a common problem, how can they make sure it does not re-appear?

What do you think might have happened? After it worked fine during the WDRs?

Most of them come originally from gymnastics, then move over. Some, especially the Chinese, who got picked out as possibly highly talented, never did any skiing before and had to learn this step by step first.

Schöner Text - und nach dem Botn-Sieg schon die zweite sehr emotionale Geschichte heute...

The problem is that none of these journalists seem to have any knowledge about the real background of these "experts", especially Charlie Camarda, and his beef with NASA for being sidelined as nobody at JSC was able to work with him after his flight, when he got emotionally out of control.

Thanks!

I was talking about the Mission Control sim video from JSC they released recently which was cut together obviously from sims over a long period. Sometimes it's "Orion", sometimes "Integrity", obviously after the capsule was named...

I got confused when I listened to the sim coverage when they were talking about a USS2 burn - could not figure out what that was meant to be..

Apart from Columbia not being able to be sent to the ISS at that point - didn't have a docking adapter.

2003

Not really, he has a huge beef with NASA since he was sidelined there after his flight because he was so emotional it was impossible to work with him even for people like Wayne Hale. In reality he does not have access to the detailed data anymore, was told off by today's experts at many conferences.

Not only to Dragon itself, also LC-40, certain Falcon 9 components at the time. And include all this in risk evaluation and management...

Enjoy!

It's a bit more complicated than this, there were some good reasons for shutting down some reactors, both economical and ecological. If it might have been better to keep the last three running for a bit longer is open to debate, but it would have been difficult to turn the decision around in 02/22.

Some yes, but others don't.

True - this goes (and already went under the last Administration) high up into top management. And you have a few SpaceX fanboys on ops level as well...

I am afraid quite a few of them don't have enough real interest in politics, economy and social developments, are too much limited to listening to a certain spaceflight bubble lead by influencers. What is telling for me is that Mark Kelly hasn't signed... He for sure has a broader overview.