In case you missed the memo - they launch on Monday. Maybe, Background: Officials in 2012 estimated that the SLS rocket would cost $6 billion to develop, debut in 2017 and carry a $500 million per launch price tag. But the rocket is only just now debuting, having cost more than $20 billion to develop, and its per launch price tag has ballooned to $4.1 billion. I give it a 1 in 17 chance of making orbit, 1 in 50 chance of making moon orbit. "Your tax dollars at work"
we is estimatin it has about a 95% chance of gettin into orbit .. .. plus about a 90% chance of gettin ta da moon as long as rus or chin dont get involved .. ..
Neither Russia nor China will do anything overt, as they also have space programs. I got my clock set!
I say it goes up in a gigantic fireball on the launch pad! Given NASA's record, that seems about right! Call me a pessimist if you will, but our Gov. Always going with the lowest bidder sure seems legit, what could go wrong, sub quality parts made in China, yea, no thanks!
Well, if it was made in China all bets are off! They can't even build a cheap push-mower. I know because the shop where I work is full of cheap China made crap that we can't get parts for. I hope that NASA got the extended warranty!
Maybe they will give Brandon the control box that has the "launch" and "self destruct" buttons and make it interesting
Ok, I’ll bite… I figure that it makes the whole trip, there and back, with just a few issues poping up, but nothing Mission Critical…
The problem with NASA and the government in general is that the cost of mowing the grass destroys everything. At least 4 billion was spent on 2021 on support and services, a couple times what Musk plans to spend in total on the development and construction of his big rocket. Then congress cuts budget for project X, fill in the blank, can't cut staff, so money gets spent and nothing gets built. And every contract has to help fund their suppliers, so not only all the pork in NASA gets covered, but also in Boeing, etc. As bad as the 20 billion to design and build the first one sounds, the true cost is even higher as it doesn't include all the hidden administrative costs, facility costs, pubic relations costs, etc. Hired Boeing in 2010 to build crew launch vehicle, redo of 1990's tech to be used on existing, 1980's design launch units, not reusable, 13 years later still haven't put men on station. Spacex built capsule,reusable booster,some with up to 10 flights, makes regular deliveries, and gears up for next project. Boeing Starliner capsule launches on critical NASA test flight to space station Atlas 5 launch unit, Russian engine, 600 units launched with "stable technology" so less chance of failure, etc. Atlas V Spacex using their unit, development cost of capsule and launch rocket at 400 million which NASA estimates the development cost 10 % of what it would have cost them, without the mowing of the grass. Falcon 9 - Wikipedia Point I am making, we no longer build and maintain a space program, we maintain and build the NASA and its crony empire. That may or may not in the end actually get something into orbit. Musk made a decision to go from carbon fiber to stainless steel, it was done. Was it a good decision, time will tell. He however did not spend 5 years researching the problem, have two teams building and testing mockups, build proto types of both methods, and test launch them, then 5 years later, build the selected test launch vehicle. Could he be wrong, yes, but it is more likely that as they say to cover their butt, it is less than an optimal solution, not that it won't work. His main thought seems to be to avoid the heat resistant tiles at all costs as it would prevent rapid reuse of launcher and failure could destroy the whole rocket. Musk, like Kelly Johnson and the skunk works team, made decisions and stuck to them and in their own weird way are to conservative to do well in NASA, they build things rather than cover their butts, hire people who can do the job, fire them if they can't, and accept responsibility for their decisions. That was Von Braun's greatest strength as well. Why Elon Musk Turned to Stainless Steel for SpaceX's Starship Mars Rocket
The words "WAR EAGLE" are written somewhere inside the Orion spacecraft, so it is doomed! ROLL TIDE ROLL!!
Yep, a reliable engine, the RL 10. is being used by NASA for their moon shot.Been in use for close to 60 years and based on German WW2 tech. Their main engine is a revamped RS 25 used as the main engine on the space shuttle. SpaceX heavy rocket uses engines developed in early 2000's instead and are constantly improving them. Inside SpaceX’s Revolutionary Merlin Engines That Could Take Us to Mars
I'm still on the 'boom' side of the bet. We've burned up our tax dollars all over the place. Why not here too?
My question is...why NASA is even doing this anymore - I mean - Musk and crew has shown they can do it better, faster and cheaper so call me stupid but... I will now go sit in the corner and color quietly. EDIT: Don't get me wrong, there are still projects for NASA but they should be out of the business of putting people and etc. into space and I mean all of it - design, development, implementation and operations. They just are no longer cost effective, and this will be shown more in this coming project. If they were a civilian company or organization then I would say the best thing would be to break them up into specific smaller units/groups (companies) focused on specific problems and deleting redundant and duplication of processes and work; however, since it is impossible to downsize a federal government agency then they should contract it out and downscale through retirement and normal attrition due to lack of advancement, opportunities, and funding. EDIT: Oh! And, it will be a success...no matter how poorly it performs.
Yep, any government or governmental organization reaches the point where its doing its original function, be it launching men into space, achieving the common good, preserving law and order, etc is no longer its main driving force. It changes into growing and protecting the organization and the turf it has claimed. There are several shining examples, the Osprey aircraft, F-35, M1 tank, the KC-46, any navy carrier, any destroyer replacement, you can see the trend. Then the organization "learns" how to manipulate those who fund it or are supposed to regulate it. NASA has so many different functions and so many contractors, sub contractors, research funding for colleges, etc, that even trying to cut them back leads to a lot of pressure on the congress. Then if a member of the organization backs a "tried and proven source" , and it fails, he will not be punished, but if anyone supports any challenges to the status quo and it fails, they have a special cross already waiting for them in supply. The public view that they are doing the assigned task becomes more important than doing the task. In the Artemis case they are updating a good crude brute force technique that got us to the moon 60 years ago with new computers, some better materials, a lot of political correctness as one of the major goals is to put a person of color on the moon, 3 D printed parts, probably due to all the old machinist died and didn't teach anyone how to machine 10 parts by hand to very fine specs, and so on. Space shuttles cost about 1.6 billion dollars a launch, with an estimate of about 200 billion for the total shuttle program. NASA spent in today's dollars about 280 billion dollars to put a few men on the moon and then could never figure out to do when they got there. Couldn't build or supply anything, it became in most senses one of the most beautiful thrilling publicity stunt in the history of man. The Artemis has cost 23 billion so far and is expected to cost 4.1 billion per launch. The Cost of Space Flight Before and After SpaceX Why the $4.1 billion launch cost of NASA’s Moon rocket could destroy it
After months of tests, troubleshooting and repairs, engineers fueled the Space Launch System moon rocket for blastoff Monday on NASA's long-overdue Artemis 1 test flight — a mission to send an unpiloted Orion crew capsule on a 42-day mission beyond the moon and back. But after working through a weather delay and a brief indication of a hydrogen leak, trouble cooling one of the rocket's main engines forced managers to call off the countdown. "We don't launch until it's right," said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. "I think it's illustrative that this is a very complicated machine, a very complicated system, and all those things have to work. You don't want to light the candle until it's ready to go." I failed to mention launch scrub -forgot how bad NASA contractors are at this. I suppose because it has been so long since their last cyro launch. Now, will they let the Starship launch - or continue to keep it tied up with bureaucratic BS until NASA can crow about their vastly more expensive POS?
The Curse of Kamala: Vice President Harris’s Desperate Winless Streak Continues After NASA Scrubs Artemis Launch Harris's Desperate Winless Streak Continues After NASA Scrubs Launch
There's a live feed... I think they will make it to the moon and find all kinds of Chinese there who will promptly say: