The Artemis Program - NASA manned mission to the Moon and Mars

[Skroe]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50140572

Jeff Bezos has announced the formation of a "national team" that will aim to build the lander that will take astronauts back to the Moon in 2024.

Bezos' space company Blue Origin has teamed up with aerospace giants Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Draper to bid for the landing system.

The White House has set the ambitious goal of sending a man and a woman to the lunar South Pole within five years.

Bezos outlined the plan at a meeting in Washington DC.



- - - Updated - - -

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50070615

NASA unveils new space suit for moon landing.



- - - Updated - - -

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49759627

NASAs Moon Rocket Takes Shape

Its hilarious that for our Putin-wannabe President, Artemis remains a very Russian Space Mission.

Artemis right now, is a fantasy. It's a lander that isn't designed, combined with a rocket that hasn't flown and costs $1.3 billion per launch, and a capsule that is over designed for its purpose and way, way too expensive per unit.

It's a bunch of CG art, and a bunch of statements of intent, some logos, and nothing more.

Without the Exploration Upper Stage, which won't be ready for the Artemis 3 in 2024, the mission architecture relies on multiple Block Is and commercial spacecraft (namely, Falcons).

This is the plan. It's a really bad plan.



Most notable is that the Lunar lander will have to be launched to the Lunar Platform-Gateway via THREE commercial flights, and be assembled. The Habitation, Descent and Ascent modules will all be on different flights. Which means the first integrated test will be on the landing attempt.

They didn't even do this during Apollo. For good reason. They staged Apollo 10 first.

Between the time table and the mission manifest, this is an invitation for astronauts to be stranded on the moon... or the US gets lucky if it doesn't happen.

Landing on the moon is basically pointless. The rationale for the Gateway station is to use it as the framework for the Mars Transit Vehicle. The technologies utilized for Lunar missions are incompatible with a Mars mission. The money is better spent on developing the engines and technologies for Mars, rather than planting a flag at great risk and expense on a place the US has been, and leaving.

And more to the point, multiple Falcon Heavy's are both more capable and a fraction of the cost of the Senate Launch System. Years ago, I was a vocal advocate of the SLS here. But the economics changed and the technology improved. The launch and landing technology of SpaceX made the SLS obsolete before it flew. The only reason it exists is to keep Alabama in the rocket building business. It is flying pork.

Fortunately, because the budget doesn't fund it, the mission won't actually happen.

[Kokolums]

Technically, Apollo 13 was stranded and dead. They still found a way to get everyone home.

[PACOX]

I believe it when I see it. Boeing and SpaceX were supposed have their manned test done or a few weeks away by now. SpaceX managed to build a new silver...toy though.

[Skroe]

Technically, Apollo 13 was stranded and dead. They still found a way to get everyone home.

Apollo 13 utilized physics and the engine of the Lunar Module to make put themselves in a free return trajectory around the moon. It was a disaster for the mission, but also eminently solvable because of the physics of slingshot around the moon, and that they had an engine they could fire.

That is a very different kind of problem than landing on the moon, only to find the ascent stage of the lander doesn't work as planned. If that happens, they're dead. The US will never be able to fly another mission, with another lander, in the time they have to survive (their on-surface oxygen supplies being the ultimate limit). It will take months to assembly a new LM. And weeks to get all three pieces on the launch pad, then to lunar orbit, connected there, and then landed. Oxygen supplies for Artemis 3 won't last that long by far.

The idea of doing a lunar landing mission with a new LM that doesn't have an Apollo 10 analog is insane. It's also why it is never going to happen. The 2024 date is there right now just to not tilt the manchild in the oval office, for as short a time he has left (thanks to today's bombshell). But make no mistake. The moment he's gone, that's going to miraculously become 2026-2028, as NASA does the test flights it needs to in order to not kill people.

If it does it at all, which I doubt. Because nothing used as part of the Artemis program is relevant to Mars. And none of it has been funded.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe it when I see it. Boeing and SpaceX were supposed have their manned test done or a few weeks away by now. SpaceX managed to build a new silver...toy though.

SpaceX has been dragging its feet with Dragon2. It's making money hand over fist with Falcon 9 launches, and it knows how the Dragon 2 story ends. It'll fly in its manned configuration perhaps a dozen times (cargo-unmanned 20+ times), then the ISS will be de-orbited, thus ending the purpose of Dragon 2, which plays no role in SpaceX's core business or future space plans.

And for Boeing, when RD-180 engines dry up and Atlas V launches cease in a few years, they have no in-house launch vehicle for the Starliner, especially since Vulcan-Centaur isn't anywhere close to a test launch. They may have to buy flights on the SpaceX Falcon 9, which will fly the Starliner, in order to meet their contract obligations.

For SpaceX especially, Dragon2 basically arrived too late. It's an important advance in capsule design, but it's basically a legacy of a different business than it is now. When Starship (BFR) flies next decade, Dragon will be even more obsolete.

[Fincayra]

Its hilarious that for our Putin-wannabe President, Artemis remains a very Russian Space Mission.

Artemis right now, is a fantasy. It's a lander that isn't designed, combined with a rocket that hasn't flown and costs $1.3 billion per launch, and a capsule that is over designed for its purpose and way, way too expensive per unit.

It's a bunch of CG art, and a bunch of statements of intent, some logos, and nothing more.

Without the Exploration Upper Stage, which won't be ready for the Artemis 3 in 2024, the mission architecture relies on multiple Block Is and commercial spacecraft (namely, Falcons).

This is the plan. It's a really bad plan.



Most notable is that the Lunar lander will have to be launched to the Lunar Platform-Gateway via THREE commercial flights, and be assembled. The Habitation, Descent and Ascent modules will all be on different flights. Which means the first integrated test will be on the landing attempt.

They didn't even do this during Apollo. For good reason. They staged Apollo 10 first.

Between the time table and the mission manifest, this is an invitation for astronauts to be stranded on the moon... or the US gets lucky if it doesn't happen.

Landing on the moon is basically pointless. The rationale for the Gateway station is to use it as the framework for the Mars Transit Vehicle. The technologies utilized for Lunar missions are incompatible with a Mars mission. The money is better spent on developing the engines and technologies for Mars, rather than planting a flag at great risk and expense on a place the US has been, and leaving.

And more to the point, multiple Falcon Heavy's are both more capable and a fraction of the cost of the Senate Launch System. Years ago, I was a vocal advocate of the SLS here. But the economics changed and the technology improved. The launch and landing technology of SpaceX made the SLS obsolete before it flew. The only reason it exists is to keep Alabama in the rocket building business. It is flying pork.

Fortunately, because the budget doesn't fund it, the mission won't actually happen.

Landing on the moon is far from pointless. I've always had the opinion that not pushing the moon after landing on it in the first place set our species back technologically decades. We should already have a fully fleshed out moon base, if not a colony. All of this would have been set up through trial and, yes, errors, through the decades since the original Apollo missions. The moon gives us many benefits. We can build much larger spacecraft there, and launch them much cheaper per pound than we can on Earth. We can have ground based telescopes there that would rival the clearest and most expensive space telescopes, and would be much easier and cheaper to maintain as well. We would also have the opportunity to see how humanity develops in a completely different gravity from Earth. Would they grow taller and thinner? Would they survive on Earth after a childhood on the moon? All questions that we should already have the answer to. But, not pursuing the moon has left us where we are today. You might ask, how would we pay for all of this? Well, I can name quite a few wars over the past decades that cost many trillions of dollars that cost millions of lives that would have been far better spent on research and development and the betterment of humanity. It's too late now to be complaining about that I guess. All we can do is push forward with what we got. And, your criticisms of the plan are pretty spot on. We need in house development of the technology needed for the missions. We had missions fail in the past because one company used centimeters and another company used inches. When you're sending someone hundreds of thousands of miles away from Earth, you need the damn best guarantees that they are gonna make it back alive. That was part of the problem with the space industry in the last few decades. Several mission failures swayed public opinion away from funding NASA as well as it should have.

[Skroe]

Landing on the moon is far from pointless. I've always had the opinion that not pushing the moon after landing on it in the first place set our species back technologically decades.

Nonsense. First, spare me with the "species" talk. The real world is not Star Trek nor an RTS. Secondly space technology alone has advanced leaps and bounds beyond what was flown in the Apollo era.

That's the ironic part. Apollo era rockets.... good at what they were designed to do.... but not really good to do anything else with.

Better rockets and better space technology - not to mention the digital revolution, dramatic advances in medicine, and many other technologies - came in the decades after Apollo and had little nothing to do with it at all. And there is no reason to think an expanded space program would have spurred it either.

We should already have a fully fleshed out moon base, if not a colony. All of this would have been set up through trial and, yes, errors, through the decades since the original Apollo missions.

There isn't any point of one, either than lunar science and building a big telescope.

The moon gives us many benefits. We can build much larger spacecraft there, and launch them much cheaper per pound than we can on Earth.

Old and groundless canard. I'll explain why.

Space Rockets are made up of millions of parts, from thousands of suppliers across many States in the union and internationally. They rely on factories, machinists specialized towards one part, before they are sent to some location (California, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana or Florida usually) for final assembly.

If you're going to build rockets on the Moon, you're either relocating the entire industrial base to the Moon - which is impossible (the Moon lacks the raw resources to do that) - or you're talking about shipping the parts to the moon and doing final assembly on the moon. Which means spending energy launch large, finished components off the Earth, sending them to the moon, landing them, then in their final form launching them again. Both would require more than a 'base" or a colony. THey'd require a city or a country, that would be hugely dependent on Earth for fundamental supplies and raw materials to keep making the things their making.

It's a nonsense proposition unless this colony has many thousands of people, enormous energy production capabilities, and the ability to somehow turn the Moon's accessible raw materials into something useful, like titanium, aluminum and carbon fiber. And put them into useful shapes.

Now the retort typically given to this is "but 3d printing". It's a bullshit retort. They might as well say "but replicators!". 3D printing isnt anywhere near that level of sophistication yet, and won't be for many, many years. If ever. Secondly scale issues. Thirdly it doesn't change the material needs.

The superior solution remains constructing large Transiting aircraft in Earth orbit, and utilizing refueling depots, or nuclear propulsion. But turning the moon into a giant factory within a single life time is pure fantasy. After 200 years of infrastructure building? Absolutely. But we're not close to even needing to lay the foundation to that yet.

We can have ground based telescopes there that would rival the clearest and most expensive space telescopes, and would be much easier and cheaper to maintain as well.

This is true, though not a rationale to do a major lunar mission, especially when the designs for post-JWST space telescopes would ditch both monolithic and segement mirrors for larger, scalable solutions at a fraction of the cost of a large lunar base to support this large lunar telescope.

We would also have the opportunity to see how humanity develops in a completely different gravity from Earth.
Would they grow taller and thinner? Would they survive on Earth after a childhood on the moon? All questions that we should already have the answer to.

First, we have mountains of data about how lower gravity/microgravity environments afflict human beings based on ISS experiments over 20 years. There is not substantial enough need to find that out with regards to the moon, especially since Mars gravity is far greater than the Moons and the data would not be applicable.

Secondly exposing Children to a colonist life at this point, as part of a science project, would be utterly barbaric. That is not something to "find out".

But, not pursuing the moon has left us where we are today.

Which is in a pretty goddamn excellent position, as the Space program has better, more economical and more capable rockets than ever before, and we've lived in nothing less than the golden age of planetary exploration... all SINCE Apollo.

Nearly everything we know about the Solar system and the planets in it has come after 1969.

You might ask, how would we pay for all of this? Well, I can name quite a few wars over the past decades that cost many trillions of dollars that cost millions of lives that would have been far better spent on research and development and the betterment of humanity.

Poorly informed utopian nonsense. Earthbound issues effect the lives of billions. I am a space enthusiast and a scientist. But it's all frivolous in the big scheme of things. The US has a Space Program because w'ere large enough AND rich enough to be above to dabble in hobbies. We're not a country that has to look between the seats for change to keep the power turned on. Earthbound issues must always come first because it's fundamentally about how people live. And our global political differences are important for that reason as well. We should not be cooperating with China in space, for example, because what America and China define as human freedom are fundamentally at odds and cannot permanently co-exist. Partnership means legitimization. And we must never legitimize their Earthbound abuses just to facilitate offworld utopian dreams.

Secondly... "wars". Yeah, wars are nothing on the budget compared to entitlement programs. But that's the way it should be. The first priority of any state should be the welfare and security of its people. Entitlement programs are needed by hundreds of millions of Americans. We should absolutely pay for them in full, unless Americans don't need them anymore for some reason. The essentials have to come before the frivolous.


Thirdly, most of the big defense contractors are also the big defense space contractors, and defense budgets are the bread and butter of all space companies. SpaceX and ULA are happy to launch the Falcon 9 and Atlas V for NASA. But it is the regular national security launches that pay the bills. SpaceX in particular fought hard to end ULA's monopoly on Air Force launches. The Air Force is subsidizing development of the Raptor engine. And the ULA EELVs (Atlas V, Delta IV) exist only because the government paid for them to exist.

The SLS above? THe core stage is made by Boeing. The solid rocket boosters by Northrop (who just bought Orbital ATK). The capsule is built by Lockheed Martin. It's a military industrial complex ham sandwich.

It's too late now to be complaining about that I guess. All we can do is push forward with what we got.

I mean, no offense, but your complaints are a bit... uninformed. Or just seen through the prism of rose colored glasses.

Take your complaints about the "Wars". If the US didn't go to War after 2001, that defense money would likely have gone... to defense. Why do you think the US has 187 F-22s and not 400? Or 3 DDG-1000s and not 25? Or 1980s-legacy M1A2s (albeit super upgraded) over Future Combat System? Or why there is no "2018 bomber"? It's because the US skipped a planned military upgrade cycle to pay for the wars, and as a result had to stick with the "1980s/1990s" stuff you're probably familiar with - F-15/F-16s, Los Angeles class submarines, B-1 bombers and so forth - over a decade after they were scheduled to be retired.

And, your criticisms of the plan are pretty spot on. We need in house development of the technology needed for the missions.

This I don't understand at all. NASA needs to be getting out of rocket launching business for good. They need to buy launch services from commercial vendors, and never play a role in building a rocket ever again. Payloads? Transit vehicles? Sure. But NASA has spent close to $20 billion since 2005 on a rocket that will probably launch five times at $1.3 billion per launch, before its rendered obsolete. Rather than just buying flights from SpaceX and co. And why that did not exist as an option in 2005, it does today.

We had missions fail in the past because one company used centimeters and another company used inches.

You're referring to the Mars Polar Lander or Mars Climate Orbiter. That's not exactly accurate. But there is a good reason for that - institutional knowledge. When you have the same people making vehicles and rockets for decades using the same units their entire careers, randomly swapping to metric incurs risk and means you need to reprogram a lot of software to recognize it, rewrite many manuals and reaffirm many standards. Thats why metrication in the military industrial complex has been slow and been done only by the project.

I'll offer a sort of aside to this. As the Space Shuttle Main engine was uprated over the years, they didn't redefine the improved thrust as a new "100%". They just started to define it as "105%" and "107%". For the same sort of reason. Shifting an institution's established standards is a non-trivial affair.

When you're sending someone hundreds of thousands of miles away from Earth, you need the damn best guarantees that they are gonna make it back alive. That was part of the problem with the space industry in the last few decades. Several mission failures swayed public opinion away from funding NASA as well as it should have.

I don't think mission failures have had any effect on long term public opinion. Challenger and Columbia included. Americans as a whole are still hugely supportive of space. Just not at the expense of the bread and butter. And the NASA budget is one of the few agencies of government that has grown, largely uninterrupted, since 2010.

Money is not an issue at NASA.

[Elegiac]

Landing on the moon is far from pointless. I've always had the opinion that not pushing the moon after landing on it in the first place set our species back technologically decades. We should already have a fully fleshed out moon base, if not a colony. All of this would have been set up through trial and, yes, errors, through the decades since the original Apollo missions. The moon gives us many benefits. We can build much larger spacecraft there, and launch them much cheaper per pound than we can on Earth. We can have ground based telescopes there that would rival the clearest and most expensive space telescopes, and would be much easier and cheaper to maintain as well. We would also have the opportunity to see how humanity develops in a completely different gravity from Earth. Would they grow taller and thinner? Would they survive on Earth after a childhood on the moon? All questions that we should already have the answer to. But, not pursuing the moon has left us where we are today. You might ask, how would we pay for all of this? Well, I can name quite a few wars over the past decades that cost many trillions of dollars that cost millions of lives that would have been far better spent on research and development and the betterment of humanity. It's too late now to be complaining about that I guess. All we can do is push forward with what we got. And, your criticisms of the plan are pretty spot on. We need in house development of the technology needed for the missions. We had missions fail in the past because one company used centimeters and another company used inches. When you're sending someone hundreds of thousands of miles away from Earth, you need the damn best guarantees that they are gonna make it back alive. That was part of the problem with the space industry in the last few decades. Several mission failures swayed public opinion away from funding NASA as well as it should have.

*sips wine*

You are aware there are massive ethical considerations involved in asking people to subject themselves to microgravity for possibly their entire remaining lifetimes, right?

- - - Updated - - -

I do also want to point out that a lot of this hype and crap for offworld colonization is being driven by billionaire and corporate vanity projects because...well.

Ever seen the film Elysium? Basically that.

[PACOX]

Landing on the moon is far from pointless. I've always had the opinion that not pushing the moon after landing on it in the first place set our species back technologically decades. We should already have a fully fleshed out moon base, if not a colony. All of this would have been set up through trial and, yes, errors, through the decades since the original Apollo missions. The moon gives us many benefits. We can build much larger spacecraft there, and launch them much cheaper per pound than we can on Earth. We can have ground based telescopes there that would rival the clearest and most expensive space telescopes, and would be much easier and cheaper to maintain as well. We would also have the opportunity to see how humanity develops in a completely different gravity from Earth. Would they grow taller and thinner? Would they survive on Earth after a childhood on the moon? All questions that we should already have the answer to. But, not pursuing the moon has left us where we are today. You might ask, how would we pay for all of this? Well, I can name quite a few wars over the past decades that cost many trillions of dollars that cost millions of lives that would have been far better spent on research and development and the betterment of humanity. It's too late now to be complaining about that I guess. All we can do is push forward with what we got. And, your criticisms of the plan are pretty spot on. We need in house development of the technology needed for the missions. We had missions fail in the past because one company used centimeters and another company used inches. When you're sending someone hundreds of thousands of miles away from Earth, you need the damn best guarantees that they are gonna make it back alive. That was part of the problem with the space industry in the last few decades. Several mission failures swayed public opinion away from funding NASA as well as it should have.

Well, I can name quite a few wars over the past decades that cost many trillions of dollars that cost millions of lives that would have been far better spent on research and development and the betterment of humanity.

For sure but it war and the threat of war that got us into space in the first place. The first rockets were basically modified ballistic missiles. The Space Race was due to the US and USSR not want the other to gain upper hand.

When we first went to the moon we took a lot of shortcuts. The bare minimum was done to get to the moon and back safely. We didn't know much about living and surviving in space. We didn't really care about the economics of getting there as long as we beat the Soviets. There weren't any concrete long term goals, just beat the Russians. Its as we didn't know how to swim but jump in the deep end and back out to say we reached the deepest part of the pool before our brother. Technically yes, but we still don't know to swim.

After the moon landings, we found out that the moon was kind of useless and we didn't know much about working in space. Robots are better scientific explorers than humans while LEO and Earth were better for low gravity science labs. That why time afterward was spent learning how to remain in space longer and the impacts on the body. How to build extended duration habitats, get up there more efficiently/safely, etc.

You speak of satellites. We had to learn how to build them in LEO first, Hubble.

We can have ground-based telescopes there that would rival the clearest and most expensive space telescopes,

We have those on Earth already. We even have a radio telescope that 'the size of Earth'. That's how they took an image of a black hole a few months back.

Building a large spacecraft? ISS. Before that, we had to learn how to build smaller structures, Mir, Spacelab, etc.

[Kokolums]

USA Today published a special edition newspaper about the 2024 NASA moon mission. Its $4.95 and 87 pages, filled with articles, pictures and art. I just happened to notice it at a 7-11 today. I picked one up.

[Elegiac]

USA Today published a special edition newspaper about the 2024 NASA moon mission. Its $4.95 and 87 pages, filled with articles, pictures and art. I just happened to notice it at a 7-11 today. I picked one up.

Yes, and I'm sure they'll be as relevant in 2024 as all those Times articles about how Constellation was going to be the next Apollo program are in 2019.

[Beazy]

What are we going back to the moon for?

Is there like 23 trillion tons of oil or gold stored there?

Honest question. I love space, but going back to the moon to plant another flag seems like a waste of a few hundred billion dollars.

[ddsad2212]

In general having a base on the moon to launch missions from is considered a major step in exploring the solar system as its easier to launch from the moon then earth (once everything is setup and ready). In the timeline at the start of this thread it even stated the Mars launches will come happen from the Moon. On top of that we've not been there in a fairly long time so its a good test if nothing else. Also isn't NASA budget like 20 billion a year? A most this could cost around 100 billion which is less then a "few" and this also wouldn't take up 100% of their budget

[Kokolums]

The Launch of Astronauts into space for the first time in 9 years by Americans is TODAY!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-...tation-may-27/

SpaceX will launch two astronauts to International Space Station on May 27, NASA says
By William Harwood
April 17, 2020 / 1:54 PM / CBS News

Nine years after the last space shuttle flight, NASA plans to launch two U.S. astronauts aboard a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule May 27 for a trip to the International Space Station, the agency announced Friday. The historic test flight will herald the end of America's sole reliance on Russia for basic space transportation.

The dragon class spacecraft designed by SpaceX has a part to play in the Artemis Program:

On March 27, 2020, SpaceX revealed the Dragon XL resupply spacecraft designed to carry pressurized and unpressurized cargo, experiments and other supplies to NASA's planned Gateway under a NASA Gateway Logistics Services (GLS) contract. The equipment delivered by Dragon XL missions could include sample collection materials, spacesuits and other items astronauts may need on the Gateway and on the surface of the Moon, according to NASA. It will launch on SpaceX Falcon Heavy rockets from pad 39A at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The Dragon XL is planned to stay at the Gateway for six to 12 months at a time when research payloads inside and outside the cargo vessel could be operated remotely, even when crews are not present. Its payload capacity is expected to be more than 5,000 kg (11,000 lb) to lunar orbit. Unlike previous Dragon variants, the spacecraft will not be reusable and instead focuses on transporting cargo. It will act as the United States' logistics vehicle.

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

[The Butt Witch]

What are we going back to the moon for?

Is there like 23 trillion tons of oil or gold stored there?

Honest question. I love space, but going back to the moon to plant another flag seems like a waste of a few hundred billion dollars.

Just like during the Moon landing, America is now in the middle of another cold war, this time with China, and either country will be looking to make a statement. Another lunar landing is such a statement.

[Ihavewaffles]

Why do you necro an old thread?

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

Yeah, he only kidnapped his wife and then tricked her so she could never leave the underworld.
Hephaestus was awesome, though totally a cuck.

- - - Updated - - -



Hey so is Hermes, god of travel

Rereading the thread, and just noticed that that one god has already be done :

Project Mercury

Its a bit confusing as they've been doing both roman and greek names : Apollo being misleading as the god holds the same name in either language.

Wishing the best for tonight!

[Kokolums]

Why do you necro an old thread?

This thread is going to last for years, maybe over a decade, as news of the Artemis program comes out. Its useful as a one stop shop for all news of this program.

- - - Updated - - -

Just like during the Moon landing, America is now in the middle of another cold war, this time with China, and either country will be looking to make a statement. Another lunar landing is such a statement.

China has a lot to do with this. People today might ask "why are we going to the moon?" Well, China is going to the moon. The second that Americans turn on the TV or open youtube and see video of Chinese walking on the surface of the moon, they are going to demand we go back to the moon too. The alternative to going back to the moon is for China to own the moon, which is going to be unacceptable.

[Ihavewaffles]

This isn't moon or mars landing, ur just necroing old thread

Mod Edit: If posts are adding updates and other forms of new information about a specific topic, then it's fine to bring a thread back. In this case, the update is still related enough that the title can be changed to match discussion if the OP desires that.

[Kokolums]

This isn't moon or mars landing, ur just necroing old thread

This is a step along the way. Proving that the Dragon spaceship can get astronauts into outer space is a step towards the moon landing. This isn't necroing an old thread. The Artemis Program is an ongoing program that will have MAJOR events that happen once every several months. This thread is designed to cover these events as they unfold into the 2030s.

[Beazy]

2 more hours.

The Telegraph on youtube has a really good live stream going.


*edit*
Man this is cool as fuck.