Back to the launch for a second. It looks like it JUMPED of the pad faster than I've ever seen

This is wear I start to speculate, because even though I have a close family member embedded in the program, clearly I don't know all the details.

The Falcon 9 is currently being used to launch cargo, satellites, and crew into low earth orbit. These are things that NASA has done probably thousands of times. And it's not really a headline-making activity (unless you're a space nerd). It's just routine.

It's a far cry from sending a vehicle or crew into lunar orbit or landing a crew on the moon. To date, NASA is the only organization on the planet that's done that, and it's been over 50 years since they did so.

That's a big difference, both from an engineering standpoint, and from a public perception standpoint. I don't think it's any secret that NASA has been trying to re-establish it's dominance since the shuttle was retired. And putting people on the moon again is how they are going to do it.

With that said, part of the reason the program is behind schedule is because Obama didn't fund it - using the reasoning that there was no point to go back to the moon. That was a waste of money.

That's how we wound up with SLS - the lack of funding put the program behind schedule and there was no time/money to develop a new propulsion system. SLS is "old" technology. The four engines on that rocket were space shuttle engines.

The only reason Orion survived is because it was funded through alternate allocations. For several years, the team worked on a crew capsule with no rocket to launch it.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

Back to the launch for a second. It looks like it JUMPED of the pad faster than I've ever seen

---

That's what I thought. It leaped off the pad so fast the close up cameras lost it.

TXTransplant said:

---

With that said, part of the reason the program is behind schedule is because Obama didn't fund it - using the reasoning that there was no point to go back to the moon. That was a waste of money.

---

As an ex-Nasa contractor despite all the other things Obama has done that I hate, he absolutely makes my blood boil over what he's done to Nasa. But to be fair, George W, who initiated Constellation didn't adequately fund it either.

TexAgs91 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

With that said, part of the reason the program is behind schedule is because Obama didn't fund it - using the reasoning that there was no point to go back to the moon. That was a waste of money.

---

As an ex-Nasa contractor despite all the other things Obama has done that I hate, he absolutely makes my blood boil over what he's done to Nasa. But to be fair, George W, who initiated Constellation didn't adequately fund it either.

---

Right. The reasons why the program is where it is are the result of a lot of bad (depending on your perspective) decisions, starting with W's deadline to retire the shuttle.

The program lost a lot of time and momentum when Constellation was cancelled. But enough time and money had been put into it that the work that had been done was salvaged to become Artemis. Not an ideal situation when you want to be perceived as the dominant player in space exploration.

And even if you believe that private companies like SpaceX are the future of space travel/explorations their money has to come from somewhere.

SpaceX survived the early years because Elon Musk latched on to Michael Griffin and he awarded SpaceX both NASA and DoD contracts (first as NASA administrator and then as Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering).

TXTransplant said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I guess there is a point to be made that maybe if left to do this all on their own, SpaceX could do it faster and cheaper, but again, the idea that NASA would turn all of this over to a private company just seems like science fiction.

---

Unless this government gets more authoritarian (which I'm certainly not saying won't happen), SpaceX is a private company and doesn't have to wait for NASA. The US did not claim the moon in 1969.

---

Well, right now, SpaceX is using NASA money and launchpads. See my post above…when SpaceX is able to put people in lunar orbit without using any NASA resources, then it's a different kind of space race.

---

Are you trying to imply that Space X is using NASA as some sort of crutch? That they couldn't do what they are doing without "using NASA money"?

aTmAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I guess there is a point to be made that maybe if left to do this all on their own, SpaceX could do it faster and cheaper, but again, the idea that NASA would turn all of this over to a private company just seems like science fiction.

---

Unless this government gets more authoritarian (which I'm certainly not saying won't happen), SpaceX is a private company and doesn't have to wait for NASA. The US did not claim the moon in 1969.

---

Well, right now, SpaceX is using NASA money and launchpads. See my post above…when SpaceX is able to put people in lunar orbit without using any NASA resources, then it's a different kind of space race.

---

So this is laughable. Are you trying to imply that Space X is using NASA as some sort of crutch? That they couldn't do what they are doing without "using NASA money"?

---

Get your head out of the sand.

It's well know that Michael Griffin awarded NASA contracts that kept SpaceX out of bankruptcy.

SpaceX got $386 million from him before they ever flew a rocket. NASA just recently gave them a $1.4 billion contract to cover 5 more astronaut missions.

SpaceX and Boeing have collectively been awarded a total of $5 billion to develop the Dragon and Starliner crew capsules.

So, yes…at this point, SpaceX is using NASA money to develop their technology. At a high level, it's no different than Lockheed's contract to develop Orion.

The vast majority of their launches have been at KSC or CCAFS.

The idea that they are some self-supporting, government money independent competitor of NASA is nonsense. It's a mutually beneficial relationship.

TXTransplant said:

---

Orion is not asinine. It's the only crew vehicle available at this time that can take astronauts to lunar orbit, and NASA is still touting it as a deep space vehicle for the long-term (even though the short-term plans are to establish a presence in the moon).

To be clear, I'm not trying to make any points about the SLS system, or anything other than Orion.

Your original post that I replied to made it sound like the SpaceX vehicle is a replacement for Orion, and that's simply not the case. Orion was never intended to land on the moon (just as the Apollo capsules never landed on the moon).

Regardless of what rockets are used to launch it (and I am aware that private companies are developing those as well), in order for the program to continue, Orion has to be tested/used in flight - that was first done on EFT-1 in earth orbit, this launch is for lunar orbit, and the next launch will be with a crew.

The short(ish) term plans for Orion are for it to orbit the moon and dock with the lunar gateway. Without it, the HLS and it's crew can't get to the moon.

I guess we could wait around for SpaceX and Boeing to develop an Orion equivalent, but that just puts everything further behind schedule because Orion is the only flight-tested vehicle available at this time.

And I stand by my point (which is clearly just an opinion) that there is no way NASA would have let a private company send a vehicle or crew back to the moon for the first time in 50+ years. No matter how "cost effective" or "faster" that might have been - it just was never going to happen. In the long term, I'm sure private companies will play a role, but NASA needed to re-establish that this is something they can do.

---

Artemis is really about learning building a foundation for how to do human exploration. How do you deal with the round trip time delays for a trip to Mars. How does hardware live up to the radiation environment. How do we build autonomy into our systems (for Human Exploration) when they in LEO with near real-time communications.

There may be other ways than currently planned to go to the moon, but it just goes to the moon. It doesn't do anything to test and learn about the best ways to go to Mars.

TXTransplant said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I guess there is a point to be made that maybe if left to do this all on their own, SpaceX could do it faster and cheaper, but again, the idea that NASA would turn all of this over to a private company just seems like science fiction.

---

Unless this government gets more authoritarian (which I'm certainly not saying won't happen), SpaceX is a private company and doesn't have to wait for NASA. The US did not claim the moon in 1969.

---

Well, right now, SpaceX is using NASA money and launchpads. See my post above…when SpaceX is able to put people in lunar orbit without using any NASA resources, then it's a different kind of space race.

---

So this is laughable. Are you trying to imply that Space X is using NASA as some sort of crutch? That they couldn't do what they are doing without "using NASA money"?

---

Get your head out of the sand.

It's well know that Michael Griffin awarded NASA contracts that kept SpaceX out of bankruptcy.

SpaceX got $386 million from him before they ever flew a rocket. NASA just recently gave them a $1.4 billion contract to cover 5 more astronaut missions.

SpaceX and Boeing have collectively been awarded a total of $5 billion to develop the Dragon and Starliner crew capsules.

So, yes…at this point, SpaceX is using NASA money to develop their technology. At a high level, it's no different than Lockheed's contract to develop Orion.

The idea that they are some self-supporting, government funding independent competitor of NASA is nonsense.

---

Point. But NASA made it known they were going to turn to the private sector and Space X stepped up. I'd say it was a good bet on both sides.

Right. I agree with all of that. Which is why I clarified that my comments were specific to Orion.

NASA is still touting Orion as a deep space exploration vehicle, but it is correct that there really is no actionable plan to get there.

Going back to the moon is the path to keep the program going and to test the hardware they they've already built. But you still can't land on the moon without a crew capsule…and Orion is the only flight-tested one at this time.

TXTransplant said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I guess there is a point to be made that maybe if left to do this all on their own, SpaceX could do it faster and cheaper, but again, the idea that NASA would turn all of this over to a private company just seems like science fiction.

---

Unless this government gets more authoritarian (which I'm certainly not saying won't happen), SpaceX is a private company and doesn't have to wait for NASA. The US did not claim the moon in 1969.

---

Well, right now, SpaceX is using NASA money and launchpads. See my post above…when SpaceX is able to put people in lunar orbit without using any NASA resources, then it's a different kind of space race.

---

So this is laughable. Are you trying to imply that Space X is using NASA as some sort of crutch? That they couldn't do what they are doing without "using NASA money"?

---

Get your head out of the sand.

It's well know that Michael Griffin awarded NASA contracts that kept SpaceX out of bankruptcy.

SpaceX got $386 million from him before they ever flew a rocket. NASA just recently gave them a $1.4 billion contract to cover 5 more astronaut missions.

SpaceX and Boeing have collectively been awarded a total of $5 billion to develop the Dragon and Starliner crew capsules.

So, yes…at this point, SpaceX is using NASA money to develop their technology. At a high level, it's no different than Lockheed's contract to develop Orion.

The idea that they are some self-supporting, government funding independent competitor of NASA is nonsense.

---

Falcon 1 was developed with private money (with government and private customers buying launches of their payloads). After they made it into orbit, they signed their big contract with NASA. And a contract is not a subsidy. It's earned business.

Space X is making fools of NASA. To pretend otherwise is a joke.

OnlyForNow said:

---

It's mostly trolling.


But I don't know ANYTHING about the overall Artemis project.

So if Ag_of_08 wants to provide a fact based short synopsis in all ears. Or anyone else for that matter.

---

Basically NASA took a bunch of leftover shuttle systems and cobbled them together into a big ass rocket similar to Apollo, but with a new lunar lander. They're sending the very first one to orbit the moon in the same way Apollo did before landing, but instead of doing several test flights in earth orbit and several test flights to the moon, they're testing this one time before sending people.

Ag_of_08 has issues with it because the rocket is single use, behind schedule, and over budget. Kind of hard to argue with that.

Yes and no. Griffin was very vocal that SpaceX and its ilk were government funded venture capital projects. He saw their place but didn't try to hide the fact that govt would foot the bill.

When Obama cancelled Constellation, his plan was to just give the money to private companies but Congress shut that down.

We are somewhere in between those two perspectives, but I think the more exploratory efforts (ie, moon and beyond) still look a lot like Griffin's version.

TXTransplant said:

---

Right. I agree with all of that. Which is why I clarified that my comments were specific to Orion.

NASA is still touting Orion as a deep space exploration vehicle, but it is correct that there really is no actionable plan to get there.

Going back to the moon is the path to keep the program going and to test the hardware they they've already built. But you still can't land on the moon without a crew capsule…and Orion is the only flight-tested one at this time.

---

As for deep space exploration, I would think a larger crew module would make more sense for a 9 month trip to Mars. I never understood why they wanted to cram 6 astronauts in that little capsule for all that time. And yes, it's obviously bigger than the Apollo command module, but still... for 9 months?

Can you imagine being stuck in that small a space for that amount of time? I was thinking that Mars would be achieved with something more akin to ISS size.

aTmAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I guess there is a point to be made that maybe if left to do this all on their own, SpaceX could do it faster and cheaper, but again, the idea that NASA would turn all of this over to a private company just seems like science fiction.

---

Unless this government gets more authoritarian (which I'm certainly not saying won't happen), SpaceX is a private company and doesn't have to wait for NASA. The US did not claim the moon in 1969.

---

Well, right now, SpaceX is using NASA money and launchpads. See my post above…when SpaceX is able to put people in lunar orbit without using any NASA resources, then it's a different kind of space race.

---

So this is laughable. Are you trying to imply that Space X is using NASA as some sort of crutch? That they couldn't do what they are doing without "using NASA money"?

---

Get your head out of the sand.

It's well know that Michael Griffin awarded NASA contracts that kept SpaceX out of bankruptcy.

SpaceX got $386 million from him before they ever flew a rocket. NASA just recently gave them a $1.4 billion contract to cover 5 more astronaut missions.

SpaceX and Boeing have collectively been awarded a total of $5 billion to develop the Dragon and Starliner crew capsules.

So, yes…at this point, SpaceX is using NASA money to develop their technology. At a high level, it's no different than Lockheed's contract to develop Orion.

The idea that they are some self-supporting, government funding independent competitor of NASA is nonsense.

---

Falcon 1 was developed with private money (with government and private customers buying launches of their payloads). After they made it into orbit, they signed their big contract with NASA. And a contract is not a subsidy. It's earned business.

Space X is making fools of NASA. To pretend otherwise is a joke.

---

And it nearly bankrupted the company. They didn't have a successful launch until the fourth attempt in Sept 2008.

Griffin gave them their first contract for $396 million in 2005. They got another contract for $1.6 billion from Griffin in 2008, and Elon Musk credited this as saving the company from bankruptcy because of the Falcon failures.

https://www.space.com/25355-elon-musk-60-minutes-interview.html

TexAgs91 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

Right. I agree with all of that. Which is why I clarified that my comments were specific to Orion.

NASA is still touting Orion as a deep space exploration vehicle, but it is correct that there really is no actionable plan to get there.

Going back to the moon is the path to keep the program going and to test the hardware they they've already built. But you still can't land on the moon without a crew capsule…and Orion is the only flight-tested one at this time.

---

As for deep space exploration, I would think a larger crew module would make more sense for a 9 month trip to Mars. I never understood why they wanted to cram 6 astronauts in that little capsule for all that time. And yes, it's obviously bigger than the Apollo command module, but still... for 9 months?

---

Orion is tiny, considering what they want it to do. I believe they are working on a 2.0 version to address this issue, but IIRC it would only be large enough for one more crew member (at least that's where they are at the moment). Issue is weight.

TXTransplant said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I guess there is a point to be made that maybe if left to do this all on their own, SpaceX could do it faster and cheaper, but again, the idea that NASA would turn all of this over to a private company just seems like science fiction.

---

Unless this government gets more authoritarian (which I'm certainly not saying won't happen), SpaceX is a private company and doesn't have to wait for NASA. The US did not claim the moon in 1969.

---

Well, right now, SpaceX is using NASA money and launchpads. See my post above…when SpaceX is able to put people in lunar orbit without using any NASA resources, then it's a different kind of space race.

---

So this is laughable. Are you trying to imply that Space X is using NASA as some sort of crutch? That they couldn't do what they are doing without "using NASA money"?

---

Get your head out of the sand.

It's well know that Michael Griffin awarded NASA contracts that kept SpaceX out of bankruptcy.

SpaceX got $386 million from him before they ever flew a rocket. NASA just recently gave them a $1.4 billion contract to cover 5 more astronaut missions.

SpaceX and Boeing have collectively been awarded a total of $5 billion to develop the Dragon and Starliner crew capsules.

So, yes…at this point, SpaceX is using NASA money to develop their technology. At a high level, it's no different than Lockheed's contract to develop Orion.

The idea that they are some self-supporting, government funding independent competitor of NASA is nonsense.

---

Falcon 1 was developed with private money (with government and private customers buying launches of their payloads). After they made it into orbit, they signed their big contract with NASA. And a contract is not a subsidy. It's earned business.

Space X is making fools of NASA. To pretend otherwise is a joke.

---

And it nearly bankrupted the company. They didn't have a successful launch until the fourth attempt in Sept 2008.

---

Yet it didn't. Almost only counts with nukes and horseshoes.

Quote:

---

Griffin gave them their first contract for $396 million in 2005.

---

They were SELECTED. Again, Falcon 1 was completely self funded.

Quote:

---

They got another contract for $1.6 billion from Griffin in 2008, and Elon Musk credited this as saving the company from bankruptcy because of the Falcon failures.

---

They EARNED. It was a contract of money in exchange for services provided. It wasn't a giftwrapped present. History is full of many highly successful companies that were near (or in) bankruptcy at some point. Nobody claims they were "saved" or "subsidized" by customers when they turned it around.

And your point about NASA providing them "NASA launchpads" is hilarious. NASA basically provided a patch of concrete. Space X built the launchpad on top. NASA can't even do that right anymore. They screwed up the SLS pad so bad that they may have to do it over again for future blocks. Meanwhile, SpaceX built their own in Boca Chica in only about a year.

Not to mention, the entire reason NASA was looking for COTS solutions was because they have proven to be inept at doing it themselves. The shuttle set back space exploration by decades.

NASA live stream with views of Earth from Orion

THANK YOU!

And I never said "don't go back to where you've been" I don't actually understand why we don't make more trips to the moon, considering we did it in 1969 and have only been back a handful of times.

I'm all for space exploration, what I didn't understand was the loss of data/ability to understand how a new-age rocket/lander system didn't easily translate from the 60's and 70's technology that got about 10 people to the surface of the moon PLUS all of the space walks and other space experience we gained in the 80's, 90's, and 00's.

It makes sense that you changed everything and have to "re-learn" some things, it's also dangerous and risky to just throw humans at a project without testing it, so with that understood, this makes SO much more sense.

Thank you to those with the patience, for us plebs who don't follow space exploration and the nuances of the politics around it that closely.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

It's mostly trolling.


But I don't know ANYTHING about the overall Artemis project.

So if Ag_of_08 wants to provide a fact based short synopsis in all ears. Or anyone else for that matter.

---

Basically NASA took a bunch of leftover shuttle systems and cobbled them together into a big ass rocket similar to Apollo, but with a new lunar lander. They're sending the very first one to orbit the moon in the same way Apollo did before landing, but instead of doing several test flights in earth orbit and several test flights to the moon, they're testing this one time before sending people.

Ag_of_08 has issues with it because the rocket is single use, behind schedule, and over budget. Kind of hard to argue with that.

---

Yeah, I typed several different responses before I separated out the rocket issues. And I can't argue with that. Over budget and behind schedule to reinvent the wheel. Although, it is pretty cool what those space shuttle engines can do.

My big thing was the impression that article gave that SpaceX was developing something comparable to Orion. Maybe they will eventually, but Orion is the sole option at this point.

Orion needs to be tested and SLS is all we've got to put it in lunar orbit. To wait would be a waste of years of work, IMO.

OnlyForNow said:

---

THANK YOU!

And I never said "don't go back to where you've been" I don't actually understand why we don't make more trips to the moon, considering we did it in 1969 and have only been back a handful of times.

I'm all for space exploration, what I didn't understand was the loss of data/ability to understand how a new-age rocket/lander system didn't easily translate from the 60's and 70's technology that got about 10 people to the surface of the moon PLUS all of the space walks and other space experience we gained in the 80's, 90's, and 00's.

It makes sense that you changed everything and have to "re-learn" some things, it's also dangerous and risky to just throw humans at a project without testing it, so with that understood, this makes SO much more sense.

Thank you to those with the patience, for us plebs who don't follow space exploration and the nuances of the politics around it that closely.

---

The issue isn't that we did it 50 years ago, it's that it happened 50 years ago. Program being dead for so long and people who ran it literally dead = relearning.

Also, safety red tape now much different now vs then.

Our only hope for sustained moon colony / Mars is if Elon gets us there.

SLS is a feel good thing, but at $2 Billion a launch is not sustainable. And to think they will get more efficient like Elon…. It's not gonna happen.

Premium said:

---

SLS is a feel good thing, but at $2 Billion a launch is not sustainable.

---

I agree with this minor edit. The US space program gained a lot of skill and knowledge along the way with Artemis that will benefit a sustainable and cost-effective program in the future... whether government or private. I think it could have been done cheaper and better, but that does not negate all its value.

aTmAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I guess there is a point to be made that maybe if left to do this all on their own, SpaceX could do it faster and cheaper, but again, the idea that NASA would turn all of this over to a private company just seems like science fiction.

---

Unless this government gets more authoritarian (which I'm certainly not saying won't happen), SpaceX is a private company and doesn't have to wait for NASA. The US did not claim the moon in 1969.

---

Well, right now, SpaceX is using NASA money and launchpads. See my post above…when SpaceX is able to put people in lunar orbit without using any NASA resources, then it's a different kind of space race.

---

So this is laughable. Are you trying to imply that Space X is using NASA as some sort of crutch? That they couldn't do what they are doing without "using NASA money"?

---

Get your head out of the sand.

It's well know that Michael Griffin awarded NASA contracts that kept SpaceX out of bankruptcy.

SpaceX got $386 million from him before they ever flew a rocket. NASA just recently gave them a $1.4 billion contract to cover 5 more astronaut missions.

SpaceX and Boeing have collectively been awarded a total of $5 billion to develop the Dragon and Starliner crew capsules.

So, yes…at this point, SpaceX is using NASA money to develop their technology. At a high level, it's no different than Lockheed's contract to develop Orion.

The idea that they are some self-supporting, government funding independent competitor of NASA is nonsense.

---

Falcon 1 was developed with private money (with government and private customers buying launches of their payloads). After they made it into orbit, they signed their big contract with NASA. And a contract is not a subsidy. It's earned business.

Space X is making fools of NASA. To pretend otherwise is a joke.

---

And it nearly bankrupted the company. They didn't have a successful launch until the fourth attempt in Sept 2008.

---

Yet it didn't. Almost only counts with nukes and horseshoes.

Quote:

---

Griffin gave them their first contract for $396 million in 2005.

---

They were SELECTED. Again, Falcon 1 was completely self funded.

Quote:

---

They got another contract for $1.6 billion from Griffin in 2008, and Elon Musk credited this as saving the company from bankruptcy because of the Falcon failures.

---

They EARNED. It was a contract of money in exchange for services provided. It wasn't a giftwrapped present. History is full of many highly successful companies that were near (or in) bankruptcy at some point. Nobody claims they were "saved" or "subsidized" by customers when they turned it around.

And your point about NASA providing them "using NASA launchpads" is hilarious. NASA basically provided a patch of concrete. Space X built the launchpad on top. NASA can't even do that right anymore. They screwed up the SLS pad so bad that they may have to do it over again for future blocks. Meanwhile, SpaceX built their own in Boca Chica in only about a year.

Not to mention, the entire reason NASA was looking for COTS solutions was because they have proven to be inept at doing it themselves. The shuttle set back space exploration by decades.

---

Did you even read the link I posted?

Quote from Elon himself…

"NASA called and told us we won a $1.5 billion contract," Musk says in the interview. "I couldn't even hold the phone. I just blurted out, 'I love you guys!'"

"They saved you," Pelley suggests.

"Yeah, they did."

A lot (not all) of their success has been due to financial partnerships with NASA.

And if you go back to the very beginning, Griffin was Musk's contact to even get into the industry in the first place. Griffin accompanied Musk to Russia in the early 2000s because Musk was trying to acquire a launch vehicle. Griffin was head of the CIA's venture capital arm at the time.

Musk convinced Griffin he could significantly reduce costs, and the first $396 million contract was awarded before SpaceX had ever flown a rocket. Reading the history, it's pretty clear Griffin had personal interests in supporting Musk, and I have no doubt this alliance made Mike Griffin a very wealthy man.

I will give SpaceX credit for doing some things better and cheaper and faster than NASA, but to suggest or imply that they are doing so independent of NASA is laughable.

SpaceX isn't making a fool of NASA. NASA just launched the biggest rocket ever with 8.8 million lbs of thrust. No one, including SpaceX, has ever done that before. Falcon Heavy is 5 million lbs of thrust.

Arguably, NASA could have let SpaceX develop an equivalent of SLS, but that's not what happened. And it's not like SpaceX went out and did it on their own.

Marvin said:

---

Premium said:

---

SLS is a feel good thing, but at $2 Billion a launch is not sustainable.

---

I agree with this minor edit. The US space program gained a lot of skill and knowledge along the way with Artemis that will benefit a sustainable and cost-effective program in the future... whether government or private. I think it could have been done cheaper and better, but that does not negate all its value.

---

When it cost more than what we get out of it, then the cumulative value is negative. These lessons would have been learned anyway, but at a much lower cost if government got out of it and let the private sector take over completely.

Premium said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

THANK YOU!

And I never said "don't go back to where you've been" I don't actually understand why we don't make more trips to the moon, considering we did it in 1969 and have only been back a handful of times.

I'm all for space exploration, what I didn't understand was the loss of data/ability to understand how a new-age rocket/lander system didn't easily translate from the 60's and 70's technology that got about 10 people to the surface of the moon PLUS all of the space walks and other space experience we gained in the 80's, 90's, and 00's.

It makes sense that you changed everything and have to "re-learn" some things, it's also dangerous and risky to just throw humans at a project without testing it, so with that understood, this makes SO much more sense.

Thank you to those with the patience, for us plebs who don't follow space exploration and the nuances of the politics around it that closely.

---

The issue isn't that we did it 50 years ago, it's that it happened 50 years ago. Program being dead for so long and people who ran it literally dead = relearning.

Also, safety red tape now much different now vs then.

Our only hope for sustained moon colony / Mars is if Elon gets us there.

SLS is a feel good thing, but at $2 Billion a launch is not sustainable. And to think they will get more efficient like Elon…. It's not gonna happen.

---

I can say with fact that the Orion engineers had to go back and relearn how Apollo was built. They reviewed old documents and reports and pieced them together because the direct knowledge was simply not there and there was no one to ask. My dad is probably the oldest person on the program (he's been with it from the start) and he was only 17 when Apollo first launched.

NASA also stressed review of ALL accidents (even the shuttle disasters) in development of the new crew capsule. To the point where the team was invited to view wreckage that is kept from public view. Design of Orion was very much a dive into history.

OnlyForNow said:

---

THANK YOU!

And I never said "don't go back to where you've been" I don't actually understand why we don't make more trips to the moon, considering we did it in 1969 and have only been back a handful of times.

I'm all for space exploration, what I didn't understand was the loss of data/ability to understand how a new-age rocket/lander system didn't easily translate from the 60's and 70's technology that got about 10 people to the surface of the moon PLUS all of the space walks and other space experience we gained in the 80's, 90's, and 00's.

It makes sense that you changed everything and have to "re-learn" some things, it's also dangerous and risky to just throw humans at a project without testing it, so with that understood, this makes SO much more sense.

Thank you to those with the patience, for us plebs who don't follow space exploration and the nuances of the politics around it that closely.

---

Believe it or not, the designs for the Saturn V have been lost. There is a lot of relearning to do in terms of a heavy lift rocket of that size.

This will also be more capable than Apollo, IIRC. Apollo was very limited on how it orbited the moon, and its lunar orbit needed to be fairly coplanar with its earth orbit because a polar orbit is much harder to achieve. Therefore it could not land near the poles because its orbit was limited to around the equator. I believe Artemis is looking to land near one of the poles, where sunlight can be constant. You can't have a long term presence without constant sun for power. Otherwise you essentially need a nuclear reactor or big ass batteries during lunar night because it's 14 days.

TXTransplant said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I guess there is a point to be made that maybe if left to do this all on their own, SpaceX could do it faster and cheaper, but again, the idea that NASA would turn all of this over to a private company just seems like science fiction.

---

Unless this government gets more authoritarian (which I'm certainly not saying won't happen), SpaceX is a private company and doesn't have to wait for NASA. The US did not claim the moon in 1969.

---

Well, right now, SpaceX is using NASA money and launchpads. See my post above…when SpaceX is able to put people in lunar orbit without using any NASA resources, then it's a different kind of space race.

---

So this is laughable. Are you trying to imply that Space X is using NASA as some sort of crutch? That they couldn't do what they are doing without "using NASA money"?

---

Get your head out of the sand.

It's well know that Michael Griffin awarded NASA contracts that kept SpaceX out of bankruptcy.

SpaceX got $386 million from him before they ever flew a rocket. NASA just recently gave them a $1.4 billion contract to cover 5 more astronaut missions.

SpaceX and Boeing have collectively been awarded a total of $5 billion to develop the Dragon and Starliner crew capsules.

So, yes…at this point, SpaceX is using NASA money to develop their technology. At a high level, it's no different than Lockheed's contract to develop Orion.

The idea that they are some self-supporting, government funding independent competitor of NASA is nonsense.

---

Falcon 1 was developed with private money (with government and private customers buying launches of their payloads). After they made it into orbit, they signed their big contract with NASA. And a contract is not a subsidy. It's earned business.

Space X is making fools of NASA. To pretend otherwise is a joke.

---

And it nearly bankrupted the company. They didn't have a successful launch until the fourth attempt in Sept 2008.

---

Yet it didn't. Almost only counts with nukes and horseshoes.

Quote:

---

Griffin gave them their first contract for $396 million in 2005.

---

They were SELECTED. Again, Falcon 1 was completely self funded.

Quote:

---

They got another contract for $1.6 billion from Griffin in 2008, and Elon Musk credited this as saving the company from bankruptcy because of the Falcon failures.

---

They EARNED. It was a contract of money in exchange for services provided. It wasn't a giftwrapped present. History is full of many highly successful companies that were near (or in) bankruptcy at some point. Nobody claims they were "saved" or "subsidized" by customers when they turned it around.

And your point about NASA providing them "using NASA launchpads" is hilarious. NASA basically provided a patch of concrete. Space X built the launchpad on top. NASA can't even do that right anymore. They screwed up the SLS pad so bad that they may have to do it over again for future blocks. Meanwhile, SpaceX built their own in Boca Chica in only about a year.

Not to mention, the entire reason NASA was looking for COTS solutions was because they have proven to be inept at doing it themselves. The shuttle set back space exploration by decades.

---

Did you even read the link I posted?

Quote from Elon himself…

"NASA called and told us we won a $1.5 billion contract," Musk says in the interview. "I couldn't even hold the phone. I just blurted out, 'I love you guys!'"

---

What is this supposed to prove? Ford loves their customers too. Just like every other company out there.

Quote:

---

"They saved you," Pelley suggests.

"Yeah, they did."

---

Just like Marvel Entertainment's customers save them from literal bankruptcy? Yeah, when companies turn themselves around with improved sales they are thankful. Every company would go into bankruptcy if they had no customers. Customers literally save them every week.

Quote:

---

A lot (not all) of their success has been due to financial partnerships with NASA.

---

Just like every company owes their success to their customers. Again, this was not a subsidy, it was a customer/supplier relationship.

Quote:

---

And if you go back to the very beginning, Griffin was Musk's contact to even get into the industry in the first place. Griffin accompanied Musk to Russia in the early 2000s because Musk was trying to acquire a launch vehicle. Griffin was head of the CIA's venture capital arm at the time.

Musk convinced Griffin he could significantly reduce costs, and the first $396 million contract was awarded before SpaceX had ever flown a rocket. Reading the history, it's pretty clear Griffin had personal interests in supporting Musk, and I have no doubt this alliance made Mike Griffin a very wealthy man.

---

It's called a sales pitch. They happen every day. He convinced Griffin he could do what he is doing and Griffin believed him and awarded him a contract. Good thing, that he could recognize talent.

Quote:

---

I will give SpaceX credit for doing some things better and cheaper and faster than NASA, but to suggest or imply that they are doing so independent of NASA is laughable.

---

NASA LAUGHED at SpaceX when they put landing legs on their rockets. SpaceX has been developing starship using their own money. NASA later awarded Space X the lander contract, but it had no effect on Space X's development. Hell, even when Bezos sued everybody and halted the contract, Space X continued with their development like nothing happened. The Raptor is the most advanced engine in world history. All of this on their own. Regardless of NASA contracts. That is absolutely independent.

Quote:

---

SpaceX isn't making a fool of NASA. NASA just launched the biggest rocket ever with 8.8 million lbs of thrust. No one, including SpaceX, has ever done that before. Falcon Heavy is 5 million lbs of thrust.

---

Starship will nearly double the thrust of SLS and will be 100% reusable. NASA guys made fun of Falcon Heavy calling it vaporware while SLS was "real". Yet Space X developed and launched Falcon heavy 4 times since then. And that is including the delay for them to perfect landing rockets first. Space X is absolutely making a mockery of NASA. They aren't even in the same ballpark.

Quote:

---

Arguably, NASA could have let SpaceX develop an equivalent of SLS, but that's not what happened. And it's not like SpaceX went out and did it on their own.

---

It's not the first time NASA has done something incredibly stupid.

Most companies don't survive without revenue. Doesn't mean revenue is a handout.

aTmAg said:

---

Marvin said:

---

Premium said:

---

SLS is a feel good thing, but at $2 Billion a launch is not sustainable.

---

I agree with this minor edit. The US space program gained a lot of skill and knowledge along the way with Artemis that will benefit a sustainable and cost-effective program in the future... whether government or private. I think it could have been done cheaper and better, but that does not negate all its value.

---

When it cost more than what we get out of it, then the cumulative value is negative. These lessons would have been learned anyway, but at a much lower cost if government got out of it and let the private sector take over completely.

---

There's absolutely zero way to prove or quantify it, but it's an opinion you are entitled to have (like mine).

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Most companies don't survive without revenue. Doesn't mean revenue is a handout.

---

NASA contracts to develop a rocket or crew capsule aren't revenue.

Marvin said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Marvin said:

---

Premium said:

---

SLS is a feel good thing, but at $2 Billion a launch is not sustainable.

---

I agree with this minor edit. The US space program gained a lot of skill and knowledge along the way with Artemis that will benefit a sustainable and cost-effective program in the future... whether government or private. I think it could have been done cheaper and better, but that does not negate all its value.

---

When it cost more than what we get out of it, then the cumulative value is negative. These lessons would have been learned anyway, but at a much lower cost if government got out of it and let the private sector take over completely.

---

There's absolutely zero way to prove or quantify it, but it's an opinion you are entitled to have (like mine).

---

The fact that Space X is doing everything else at a tiny fraction of the cost of NASA is a way to quantify it. Why would this be the magic exception?

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

THANK YOU!

And I never said "don't go back to where you've been" I don't actually understand why we don't make more trips to the moon, considering we did it in 1969 and have only been back a handful of times.

I'm all for space exploration, what I didn't understand was the loss of data/ability to understand how a new-age rocket/lander system didn't easily translate from the 60's and 70's technology that got about 10 people to the surface of the moon PLUS all of the space walks and other space experience we gained in the 80's, 90's, and 00's.

It makes sense that you changed everything and have to "re-learn" some things, it's also dangerous and risky to just throw humans at a project without testing it, so with that understood, this makes SO much more sense.

Thank you to those with the patience, for us plebs who don't follow space exploration and the nuances of the politics around it that closely.

---

Believe it or not, the designs for the Saturn V have been lost. There is a lot of relearning to do in terms of a heavy lift rocket of that size.

This will also be more capable than Apollo, IIRC. Apollo was very limited on how it orbited the moon, and its lunar orbit needed to be fairly coplanar with its earth orbit because a polar orbit is much harder to achieve. Therefore it could not land near the poles because its orbit was limited to around the equator. I believe Artemis is looking to land near one of the poles, where sunlight can be constant. You can't have a long term presence without constant sun for power. Otherwise you essentially need a nuclear reactor or big ass batteries during lunar night because it's 14 days.

---

I did not know that.
Learn something new every day.

TXTransplant said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Most companies don't survive without revenue. Doesn't mean revenue is a handout.

---

NASA contracts to develop a rocket or crew capsule aren't revenue.

---

Well that's news to my employer. When we sign a contract with NASA we absolutely consider it revenue.