re: NASA pushes back dates for Artemis II and Artemis III missions.

Smarter every dayHe brings up a lot of issues. The relevant part starts around 21:00

Musk would’ve been there 2 weeks from now.

There is so much incorrect information in this thread I don't know where to begin, but let's start with the OP.

quote:

---

Artemis II was supposed to have taken place later this year. The delay of Artemis II now pushes back the date of Artemis III.

---

This was specifically addressed in today's press conference. While it's true that both Artemis II and Artemis III are delayed, one of the questions that was asked was, "If Artemis II had not been delayed, would Artemis III have been delayed anyway?" The answer provided by NASA reps was "yes, due to Starship delays" and the SpaceX rep on the line confirmed it.

quote:

---

The issues are the main engines and the technology behind them.

---

What? The RS25 is one of the most amazing machines ever built by man, and is still unrivaled in terms of its combination of both thrust and specific impulse.

quote:

---

For this flight, SLS is behind on the construction and certification of the vehicle.

---

This isn't true. The 3 reasons for the Artemis II delay were all mentioned in today's press conference. All 3 issues belong to Orion. They were 1) an issue with the Orion heat shield discovered after Artemis I, 2) an issue qualifying an upgraded Orion battery design from what flew on Artemis I, and 3) a design issue discovered on Orion life support systems (which weren't installed on Artemis I.

The Smarter Every Day video posted above is a good watch and points out legitimate issues with the Artemis Program. Every issue he points out are related to limitations of Orion, and the most convoluted con-ops man has ever conceived in Starship. 15-ish (nobody knows how many) launches in 20 weeks with 14 in-space refuelings to bring a ham sandwich to the moon...

Considering we’ve never been there before, that’s understandable, especially considering we don’t want to jeopardize the lives of a woman and poc.

What if we just send female poc?

Aliens say neaux to NASA

Can you or someone explain the relationship between SLS, Orion, and Starship? Is it that SLS will launch Orion, but then Orion hitches a ride to the moon on starship?

Why not have one rocket for everything like we did 55 years ago?

And what is the gateway?

quote:

---

How long does it take to set up a Hollywood sound stage with moon props and actors?

---

They are making a movie. The interviews, the moon landing, the research of the moon etc. Years to produce. They are leaving no stone unturned this time. More fake BS coming.

The SLS, or Space Launch System, is a super heavy lift launch vehicle built to launch the Orion spacecraft on a lunar trajectory, lift heavy payloads to low Earth orbit or on a lunar trajectory, or lift payloads to a heliocentric orbit. There are different designs, or blocks, designed for these different purposes.

The Orion spacecraft is a partially reusable spacecraft with a crew module and a service module intended for transporting a crew of four beyond earth orbit. It is designed to autonomously dock with other craft, including the Lunar Gateway.

The Lunar Gateway is a space station that will be placed in lunar orbit to act as a communication hub, science laboratory, and short-term habitation module for astronauts, as well as a holding area for rovers and other robots, which will be transferred to and from the lunar surface.

The SpaceX Starship is a super heavy launch vehicle under design that is intended to be a (eventually) fully reusable platform for reaching geosynchronous orbit, reaching the Moon, and (eventually) reaching Mars. A tanker variant of Starship is intended to be used for refilling other craft. Another variant of Starship, the Starship Human Landing System, is intended to be used as a lunar lander as part of the Artemis program.

The general long term plan: SLS (or Starship) launches Orion to the moon, Orion docks with Lunar Gateway, Starship HLS docks with Lunar Gateway, Starship HLS lands crew on moon, moon mission, Starship HLS launches crew from moon, Starship HLS docks with Lunar Gateway, Orion departs Lunar Gateway and returns crew to Earth. SLS or Starship launch other payloads to low earth orbit, geosynchronous orbit, or lunar trajectories, and Starship tanker variants refuel things at points along the way.

quote:

---

I think you're going to see Starship make some big strides this year and my bet is that it won't be the limiting factor after another year of testing is done.

---

We'll see how it plays out. SpaceX has done some amazing things, but the Blue Origin lander may beat them here. During the press conference the SpaceX rep said their uncrewed lunar test would land in 2025. Since it takes them 15 launches and 6 months to get to the moon (a feat that takes SLS one launch and 3 days to achieve) we should see the first in that series of test launches around June of 2025. If we get to August with no progress in that campaign I expect we'll see another press conference announcing a change to Artemis III's mission.

quote:

---

The SLS is an impressive machine but it can't really do anything other send the Orion to lunar orbit.

---

What exactly can Starship do (assuming it will do anything) that SLS cannot? SLS is optimized around delivering payload to the moon, but that doesn't mean it can't do other missions. Starship is optimized around delivering thousands of Starlink satellites to low earth orbit. That's why it takes them 15 launches to bring a ham sandwich to the moon.

quote:

---

The name of the game in the space industry now is reusability

---

Oh, is it? So it wasn't the name of the game in the 1970's when the Space Shuttle was designed, but now it is? Here is some Aerospace Economics 101 for you guys... Reusability is cool, but it's not king. The number one expense of aerospace programs isn't hardware, it's people. Which means when you expend launch vehicles into the ocean, you aren't throwing away the most expensive piece of your program. Reusability only makes financial sense if you have a market for many many missions per year. Reusability increases your manpower cost (already your highest cost) for refurb etc. It also costs you performance on your mission. Every ounce of propellant, landing gear etc. that you use to land your vehicle is lost payload capacity. SLS was designed for pure power to the moon with a low launch rate. Reusability doesn't makes sense in that space. Elon created his own market with Starship - delivering thousands of Starlink satellites to low earth orbit. That's the only way that machine makes financial sense. They are trying to stuff a square peg into a round hole using it for the human landing system. That's not to say it won't work, but it will come at the expense of mission complexity, which is the whole point of the Smarter Everyday youtube video.

The per launch cost numbers for Starship assume something like 140 launches per year which amortizes their manpower cost across those launches. That's a cost of about 2B per year which is more than what we spend on SLS. I'm not saying SLS is cheap but you are comparing apples to televisions.

Plus you are using predicted numbers on extrapolated launch rates, none of which is proven. It's really easy to make up numbers and feed them to the public.

A more accurate cost comparison would be cost per mission. There are plans to bring SLS's costs down. Will it touch what SpaceX can do? Well, probably not, but per-mission costs will be closer than you think when you take into account 20 launches per mission for Starship for Artemis.

Simply launching SLS twice a year would make up that difference.