- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who is ready for Artemis I? November edition
Posted on 8/29/22 at 3:40 pm to Nature Boy
Posted on 8/29/22 at 3:40 pm to Nature Boy
As much as I wanted to believe that Artemis was about going to the moon, it isn't. I was only a few years old when Armstrong walked on the moon so I missed out on it. I was so looking forward to this project. I only live a hour and a half away from the launch site and was planning on going today but didnt.
In the end, This project was about buying votes from areas that needed the work. Political posturing just like everything else these days. People were able to get plenty of work on this project at a very escalated price and NASA just drug it along
I have no doubt it will eventually launch, I just dont believe we ever complete the 2nd and 3rd stage of the project. I hope I am wrong but I just dont see it happening
In the end, This project was about buying votes from areas that needed the work. Political posturing just like everything else these days. People were able to get plenty of work on this project at a very escalated price and NASA just drug it along
I have no doubt it will eventually launch, I just dont believe we ever complete the 2nd and 3rd stage of the project. I hope I am wrong but I just dont see it happening
0
Posted on 8/29/22 at 3:44 pm to LSUFanHouston
Folks,
Not going to lie, today sucks. It sucks for everyone. More access to space will always be a good thing. Payload to orbit is the new "high ground". Look at what China (soon to be China parterned with Russia) is building and has planned. You don't want China having more access to space than us. SLS really needs to succeed.
This isn't about NASA vs. SpacEx or public vs. private. NASA doesn't "build" rockets. We pay contractors to, we always have. In the same way NASA pays SpacEx to build their rockets, NASA also pays Boeing, Grumman and Lockheed to build the Space Launch System and Orion.
The main two differences between a SpacEx rocket and SLS are:
1) The kind of contract, and
2) Who the integrator is
SLS was developed under a cost plus contract. This means NASA pays all expenses of the rocket, plus a guaranteed profit and award fees. NASA retains the intellectual property (IP) of SLS, which means these contractors cannot go build an SLS and fly their own missions and they can't put their logos all over vehicle. NASA is also the integrator, to bring all the parts together. (This will change soon under the EPOC contract)
SpacEx is under contract to NASA via a fixed price contract. We still give them parameters to meet, we still give them requirements, and we still give them help in the form of technical manpower and other help. There are NASA employees that work with SpacEx the same way that there are NASA SLS employees that work with Boeing etc. The main difference is SpacEx is also their own integrator, and SpacEx retains the IP to their rockets under the terms of the contract. So they get to put their branding on it, and sell it to other commercial and DoD customers.
I'm not poopooing SpacEx, I fricking love SpacEx just like most folks. But to claim that somehow SpacEx is doing this alone, purely on Elon's dime is just not true. The tax payer has paid for every SpacEx rocket after Falcon 1, directly via government money, and indirectly via SpacEx use of government manpower, facilities and technology.
Not going to lie, today sucks. It sucks for everyone. More access to space will always be a good thing. Payload to orbit is the new "high ground". Look at what China (soon to be China parterned with Russia) is building and has planned. You don't want China having more access to space than us. SLS really needs to succeed.
This isn't about NASA vs. SpacEx or public vs. private. NASA doesn't "build" rockets. We pay contractors to, we always have. In the same way NASA pays SpacEx to build their rockets, NASA also pays Boeing, Grumman and Lockheed to build the Space Launch System and Orion.
The main two differences between a SpacEx rocket and SLS are:
1) The kind of contract, and
2) Who the integrator is
SLS was developed under a cost plus contract. This means NASA pays all expenses of the rocket, plus a guaranteed profit and award fees. NASA retains the intellectual property (IP) of SLS, which means these contractors cannot go build an SLS and fly their own missions and they can't put their logos all over vehicle. NASA is also the integrator, to bring all the parts together. (This will change soon under the EPOC contract)
SpacEx is under contract to NASA via a fixed price contract. We still give them parameters to meet, we still give them requirements, and we still give them help in the form of technical manpower and other help. There are NASA employees that work with SpacEx the same way that there are NASA SLS employees that work with Boeing etc. The main difference is SpacEx is also their own integrator, and SpacEx retains the IP to their rockets under the terms of the contract. So they get to put their branding on it, and sell it to other commercial and DoD customers.
I'm not poopooing SpacEx, I fricking love SpacEx just like most folks. But to claim that somehow SpacEx is doing this alone, purely on Elon's dime is just not true. The tax payer has paid for every SpacEx rocket after Falcon 1, directly via government money, and indirectly via SpacEx use of government manpower, facilities and technology.
This post was edited on 8/29/22 at 7:21 pm
Posted on 8/29/22 at 3:48 pm to AlwysATgr
What? No Muslim outreach? Maybe we should let the woman and POC construct a moon mosque while there.
—-it’ll be a Muslim woman of color
—-it’ll be a Muslim woman of color
Posted on 8/29/22 at 3:50 pm to RockinDood
quote:
Didn’t they build the tank at Michoud? It’s that cheap arse foam they use. If destroya hadn’t taken up all the money for her damn vacations they wouldn’t have to use the cut rate foam for the tanks.
Say baw, go get me that red can of Great Stuff... I'll fix that sumbitch right up
Posted on 8/29/22 at 4:00 pm to Napoleon
quote:
I was watching a video. The lunar orbit they are entering has a 14 day orbit. Is that just for this mission?
Why such a high orbit?
Also to enter that orbit they have to go within 60km of the surface.
I guess I was expecting them to follow Apollo more.
Will all the missions be this long?
Apollo had a very small area of the moon that it was capaable of landing on. Artemis has more capapbility and can land on the poles of the moon which are thought to have resources necessary for a sustained moon presence. Part of the mission and orbit of Artemis I is to fly into areas of deep space to collect data on the radiation environment for future deep space manned missions.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 4:11 pm to LSU Jonno
quote:
LSU Jonno
Artemis is 6Ys behind schedule (per a previous poster). Is NASA ok with that? How does that happen? (not gripe questions; would love to hear cogent answers)
Posted on 8/29/22 at 4:30 pm to AlwysATgr
Being behind schedule and over budget is pretty common in the aerospace industry for many reasons.
First, nobody wants to try to sell a program to investors, congress, or their customers using "worst case" cost and schedule predictions.
I mean, nothing would ever get approved that way.
But also, the more aggressive your project, the more new technologies you are developing, and the more you are going to have unforseen problems that blow your cost and schedule estimates out of the water. If we cancelled every program at the first sign of problems, then nothing would ever get built, and we'd never learn how to overcome these problems.
Is it OK? Well, I don't make those calls. But NASA has awarded a lot of contracts under the Artemis umbrella in the past few years for Gateway and Human lander systems, and the traditional Aerospace companies received a smaller piece of that pie than they were expecting. So I think you are seeing dissatisfaction there. That's just one guy's opinion.
First, nobody wants to try to sell a program to investors, congress, or their customers using "worst case" cost and schedule predictions.
I mean, nothing would ever get approved that way. But also, the more aggressive your project, the more new technologies you are developing, and the more you are going to have unforseen problems that blow your cost and schedule estimates out of the water. If we cancelled every program at the first sign of problems, then nothing would ever get built, and we'd never learn how to overcome these problems.
Is it OK? Well, I don't make those calls. But NASA has awarded a lot of contracts under the Artemis umbrella in the past few years for Gateway and Human lander systems, and the traditional Aerospace companies received a smaller piece of that pie than they were expecting. So I think you are seeing dissatisfaction there. That's just one guy's opinion.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 4:34 pm to LSU Jonno
quote:Not enough people realize Elon’s true genius is navigating government contracts
The tax payer has paid for every SpacEx rocket after Falcon 1
Posted on 8/29/22 at 4:35 pm to LSU Jonno
You guys keep posting questions and I'll keep answering them later tonight. Going drown my sorrows with a brew for now. 
Posted on 8/29/22 at 4:37 pm to wileyjones
It looks genius now. But there is a reason fixed price contracts didn't exist in this industry until now. Nobody was dumb enough to take them.
SpacEx has changed the game in that regard.
SpacEx has changed the game in that regard.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 4:48 pm to LSU Jonno
quote:
You guys keep posting questions and I'll keep answering them later tonight.
So do you think this program will actually happen? I am not talking about the Artemis 1. I think we all know that will eventually launch.
So many believe it will not be completed. The lack of emphasis is nothing more than a way to get politicians elected.
I was hoping so much for this to be real. Like a kid again. I really hope they dont smash my hopes.
Your input is awesome here by the way. Thank you.
I cant imagine working the years people have worked on something just to end up brain a political tool. Posted on 8/29/22 at 5:38 pm to LSU Jonno
Musk was able to turn a profit on a fixed price contract. The other contractors aren’t even close, as they’ve lived off the cost plus teat for decades.
Bottom line, SpaceX has proved that they are capable of delivering a better vehicle faster and cheaper. Boeing can’t deliver a manned capsule, and ULA can’t deliver a reusable vehicle. Hell, they are just now weaning themselves off of Russian engines. They’re in danger of falling even farther behind, as companies like Rocketlab move up to fill in areas SpaceX has moved away from.
What pisses me off even further is the games the government is playing. Does anyone think it’s a coincidence that Starship’s launch permit is for Sept 1, after the planned date of the SLS launch? The FAA and EPA slow walked the permit intentionally.
Bottom line, SpaceX has proved that they are capable of delivering a better vehicle faster and cheaper. Boeing can’t deliver a manned capsule, and ULA can’t deliver a reusable vehicle. Hell, they are just now weaning themselves off of Russian engines. They’re in danger of falling even farther behind, as companies like Rocketlab move up to fill in areas SpaceX has moved away from.
What pisses me off even further is the games the government is playing. Does anyone think it’s a coincidence that Starship’s launch permit is for Sept 1, after the planned date of the SLS launch? The FAA and EPA slow walked the permit intentionally.
This post was edited on 8/29/22 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 8/29/22 at 6:07 pm to Free888
quote:
Hell, they are just now weaning themselves off of Russian engines
Ummm, what? Using a Russian engine on the first stage on 1 of the several rockets you build isn't exactly even fricking close to being dependent on Russian engines.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 7:35 pm to MoarKilometers
ULA uses the RD-180 on the Atlas 5. It’s a mainstay for ULA. They’re just now getting a Blue Origin engine to test. Please don’t act like they don’t need the engine.
And regarding needing SLS for deep space. Falcon Heavy is already capable of doing that.
And regarding needing SLS for deep space. Falcon Heavy is already capable of doing that.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 7:41 pm to LanierSpots
quote:
So do you think this program will actually happen? I am not talking about the Artemis 1. I think we all know that will eventually launch.
Hard to say what portions of Artemis will continue to be funded. Every president likes to come in and play JFK and leave a lasting legacy with their own program. So they cancel their predecessor's program, and cite that it was over budget while they approve their new program that everyone knows is already underfunded. It's a constant cycle of politics.
If Biden gets re-elected, I doubt he'll cancel anything since this has a lot of Obama fingerprints on it. If a republican get's elected, who knows. It will depend how long it takes the new president to focus on NASA (most don't even think about NASA until they've been in office for a year), and how close Artemis is to its next milestone.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:00 pm to Free888
quote:
And regarding needing SLS for deep space. Falcon Heavy is already capable of doing that.
Saying that we don't need SLS because we have Falcon heavy is like saying we don't need busses because we have cars, or we don't need 747s because we have Cessnas. I mean, really just do a 30 second internet search and look up payload to low earth orbit of all launch vehicles today.
There is nothing that comes close to SLS's raw power today in its Block 1 form or in its Block 1B or Block 2 evolved versions. Even Starship is "already obsolete" based on payload to orbit.
SpacEx's success has come from making space more routine and affordable, but they are designing a different class of vehicle that what SLS is trying to do.
Every design trade that SLS has made is based on performance. SpacEx gives up performance to bring the price way down. Every bit of fuel that Falcon reserves to land its booster is fuel it isn't using to put payload into orbit. On a price per launch perspective, nobody can touch a Falcon. But there are missions that a Falcon 9 and a Falcon heavy simply can't do. That's where SLS comes in.
This post was edited on 8/29/22 at 8:01 pm
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:16 pm to LSU Jonno
Except you can send multiple Starships into orbit for much less than the cost of one SLS launch, thus negating the payload gap. You can outfit Starship in a number a variations to meet mission needs, and use some of those variations to deliver payload (oxygen, water, fuel) to a manned Starship in orbit. It negates the need to have all of that in a single vehicle at launch.
I honestly would like to understand what missions Starship/Falcon Heavy can't do that SLS can. That was the excuse used for the Europa Clipper mission (Congress even refused to allow other bidders), until NASA realized they were going to miss the launch window due to delays with SLS. SpaceX was able to demonstrate (by adding an additional stage to Falcon Heavy) that they wouldn't need a gravity assist maneuver (the excuse), and they also saved NASA $2 billion.
I honestly would like to understand what missions Starship/Falcon Heavy can't do that SLS can. That was the excuse used for the Europa Clipper mission (Congress even refused to allow other bidders), until NASA realized they were going to miss the launch window due to delays with SLS. SpaceX was able to demonstrate (by adding an additional stage to Falcon Heavy) that they wouldn't need a gravity assist maneuver (the excuse), and they also saved NASA $2 billion.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:21 pm to cypresstiger
We were there… camped out. It was clear around 1am to 3am it wasn’t going to happen. It was fun, and the kids had a blast even without the launch. We got a freebie Starlink launch since it was moved to Saturday.
We will go back for Friday if they try again…. Don’t want to miss it, but it is absurd that we continue to throw money at this program and the timeline. Next launch 2024? Wtf.
We will go back for Friday if they try again…. Don’t want to miss it, but it is absurd that we continue to throw money at this program and the timeline. Next launch 2024? Wtf.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:37 pm to concrete_tiger
quote:Seriously?
Next launch 2024? Wtf.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 9:02 pm to LSU Jonno
You and everyone else at NASA let us down today just like many times before. Frankly, we are not only disappointed in NASA, we are disappointed in you sir. We are very tired of your excuses and thievery from the American taxpayers. General Lee is correct when he suggests that your team is not the best option that we have at our disposal to fulfill the mission of space exploration. I ask that you lead the charge in a mass action of tendering resignations as soon as tomorrow morning.
Just kidding. Good luck on the next attempt.
Just kidding. Good luck on the next attempt.
Page 8 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News