While an impressively powerful rocket with a lot of money thrown at it to finally roll out to a launch complex, I can't help but be reminded of another big American industrial disaster…though it predates the Apollo/Saturn V program which much of the SLS hardware was designed to replace.

Artemis rolled out and didn't suffer any failures? Hot damn we're in business! Only two weeks of sitting in the sun and rain before they're ready to fly!

The crawlers the pad is on it the only reliable thing in the program.

I'm still calling it 50/50 whether she clears the tower and makes it to MECO. The ICPS is just a delta upper, I'm confident that will work.

The crawlers are also actual artifacts of the Apollo program.



Hence: they actually work.

That's the problem with reusing 70's technology for Artemis... They should have refused 50's...

Lol that's what inwas getting at!

Ag_of_08 said:

---

The crawlers the pad is on it the only reliable thing in the program.

I'm still calling it 50/50 whether she clears the tower and makes it to MECO. The ICPS is just a delta upper, I'm confident that will work.

---

Way to go out on a limb there. Either way you win.

40 billion dollars to date, with a 2.5billion dollar per vehicle cost.... the fact confidence is not at 90% or higher means the program is already a disaster.

I can't wait to see astronauts at the lunar south pole

NASA Identifies Candidate Regions for Landing Next Americans on Moon

I wonder what it would cost to just build another Saturn V. Has to be better than what they have wasted on the SLS.

TXAG 05 said:

---

I wonder what it would cost to just build another Saturn V. Has to be better than what they have wasted on the SLS.

---

I read the cost so far for SLS has been about $96 billion. Or about as much as one bad week for Biden in Afghanistan.

TXAG 05 said:

---

I wonder what it would cost to just build another Saturn V. Has to be better than what they have wasted on the SLS.

---

A lot. Basically their documentation on the parts were terrible and they custom fit everything to make it work. They tested everything but in the end every saturnV was different than the other

Edit: some background on this

The f1-b design, which was a modernized proposition for an f1 engine, had something like 1/4 of the parts.


I would estimate 50% or more of the manufacturing process used in the production of the vehicle don't even have an "expert" left physically capable of explaining them. Just the memory in the memory modules used haven't been made in 40+ years.

We could have, and probably should have, used the f1 as the basis for a new engine instead of the rs-25, but it would have been a very much new engine based on the F1


It's not that we CAN'T copy the Saturn V it would just be so insanely expensive to tool up for we can't afford it, nor would it have made sense. SLS wasn't the right answer, even when proposed, but senator Shelby wouldn't let the right answer happen

Can someone explain why NASA is still going with Artemis vs using something from SpaceX? Is SpaceX just not there yet, or will they get their shot to go to the moon as well?

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Can someone explain why NASA is still going with Artemis vs using something from SpaceX? Is SpaceX just not there yet, or will they get their shot to go to the moon as well?

---

Short answer... Congress
Longer answer... Artemis and the SLS have components designed, built, and/or tested in nearly every state. So jobs and money for congress critters constituents. SpaceX may have widely varied supply chains and a similar footprint (probably no where near as large as its horribly inefficient). Even if they did, you can't campaign on, "I gave money to a private enterprise that indirectly employed you." You can campaign on government contracts. So... Congress

That's a more concise statement then I could have come up with.

Regarding the Apollo 7 and 8 discussions earlier. 8 was originally supposed to test the control and maneuverability of the LEM, and they were going to do it in LEO. Not that it matters because a LEM failure anywhere was a death sentence for the men inside. The LEM wasn't ready and NASA needed eyes on TV.

Sure, 5 or 6 was it, limped into orbit with bone shaking and likely crew killing POGO vibration, but they added helium tanks to stabilize fuel pressures. That should (it did) fix it!

Those Saturn rockets would never fly today. Yes each one was essentially a hand built 1 off. For their time that were without a doubt the most complex systems every built. What they lacked in (by today's standards) manufacturing complexity they more than made up for in robustness. Knowing what we know today they were likely WAY over built. Still delicate and in the knifes edge of failure, but that was what the test stand was for. They blew that thing up plenty of times. But if it didn't blow up there it was likely plenty tough for orbit.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Regarding the Apollo 7 and 8 discussions earlier. 8 was originally supposed to test the control and maneuverability of the LEM, and they were going to do it in LEO. Not that it matters because a LEM failure anywhere was a death sentence for the men inside. The LEM wasn't ready and NASA needed eyes on TV.

---

Seriously? That's the only reason? It wouldn't have had anything to do with testing GNC, computers and communications or gathering data for future missions?

It's mentioned in the book, Apollo13, that the LEM delays put a hole in launch schedule. NASA didn't want to just repeat 7, and they didn't want to delay.

The only thing they could do with just a command module, and without repeating a previous mission AND keep their launch cadence was to roll out a Saturn V and go to the moon.

It boiled down to risk vs PR.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

It's mentioned in the book, Apollo13, that the LEM delays put a hole in launch schedule. NASA didn't want to just repeat 7, and they didn't want to delay.

The only thing they could do with just a command module, and without repeating a previous mission AND keep their launch cadence was to roll out a Saturn V and go to the moon.

It boiled down to risk vs PR.

---

They didn't want to do a repeat of 7 and rather than wasting a lunar launch opportunity which would push back their schedule they used it to test GNC, the computers and communications. I don't know how you can ignore that the behavior of those components in a trip to the moon were complete unknowns at the the time, and that those were critical for achieving a moon landing.

So you might want to expand in that area: Why did NASA consider GNC, the computers and communications in lunar orbit to be slam dunks and could solely focus on television ratings when we had never had a manned mission beyond LEO.

This is all what I recall from reading Apollo 13...

The LEM that arrived at Kennedy was no where near ready and had over 100 issues that needed be addressed before it could fly. Had they waited for this the mission would have slipped well into 1969. NASA was exceptionally keen to keeping to Kennedy's before the decade is out timeline and waiting would have seriously busted this goal. TO NASA, and likely congress this would have been a PR disaster. The only piece of necessary hardware what would be ready in time for 8's mission was the CSM (Command Service Module).

This presented NASA with a unique opportunity. NASA had a 7 step plan to the moon, but flying a CSM only mission would essesntially be a repeat of Apollo 7. However that August it was proposed instead to use the CSM to go to the moon and work on later objectives. Apollo 8 was originally slated to be a "D" style mission, 7 was a "C" mission, and the lunar objectives ultimately met by 8 were "F" class mission objectives, and ultimately negated the need for an "E" type medium earth orbit mission. There was a lunar window available in December of 68. It was an incredibly ambitious plan as much of the work for this mission had to be advanced by months.

Perhaps my pre-coffee comment this morning about it being all about TV was over reaching. However I still believe the modified objectives for Apollo 8 were rooted in the agencies desire to not take the PR hit that would have resulted from waiting 3 months for the LEM to be re-delivered. They might have still made it to the moon by end of 1969, but the chances would have been exceptionally slim. I firmly believe that not taking that PR hit very likely weighed heavily on the decision.

Kennedy threw down the gauntlet with the Russians to land a man on the moon within a decade. It wasn't just landing a man on the moon that was the great achievement, it was also the time period to make that happen. I doubt this country could even repeat that mission in a decade 50 years later if it wanted to.

But you're right, it would have been a PR nightmare to have been late on reaching that goal. The headlines "American takes first steps on the moon" would always have that asterisk: Late

Even if we landed a couple months past the decade, it would have always been said to be late. So given that the time period was part of the technological achievement Kennedy promised, NASA had to make use of every opportunity to push our capabilities until we planted the flag.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Kennedy threw down the gauntlet with the Russians to land a man on the moon within a decade. It wasn't just landing a man on the moon that was the great achievement, it was also the time period to make that happen. I doubt this country could even repeat that mission in a decade 50 years later if it wanted to.

But you're right, it would have been a PR nightmare to have been late on reaching that goal. The headlines "American takes first steps on the moon" would always have that asterisk: Late

Even if we landed a couple months past the decade, it would have always been said to be late. So given that the time period was part of the technological achievement Kennedy promised, NASA had to make use of every opportunity to push our capabilities until we planted the flag.

---

Definitely amazing in how quickly they went from blowing up every rocket they tried to launch to landing on the moon. It's really insane to think about. How long have they been screwing around with the SLS and there is no telling if it can even put something in orbit.

There was a huge difference in funding. NASA's 1969 budget was the equivalent of around $32 billion, compared to its current budget of $25 billion. They were also almost singularly focused on the lunar missions.

Yeah, making good on Kennedy's promise is probably the most incredible part of the whole story of NASA and the moon landings. For context, SpaceX is 20 years old, have been pushing the pace every step of the way, and are still years out.

In fairness, spacex also stopped and focused on booster recovery. They're the only group that has ever come close to the push that the US pulled off since Apollo 11

The soviet program was no slouch. If not for a malfunction on terminal descent, they would have beat us back with a sample return. If Mishin had been more competent, or korolev hadn't died, they would not have been far behind us.

The Saturn 1b was actually a very reliable design in the end. I love what we could have done with that vehicle serving to launch a LEO Apollo derivative, and it's really frustrating to realize the SLS is the same idiocy that brought us the shuttle stagnation

Yes.

I'm reminded that we don't have the welders with knowledge how to make the F1 engines any longer. I am sure of course it could be 're-learned' but we've wasted a lot of time/human capital since Apollo.

Seriously, I am not going to even embed this, but for those of us who enjoy this discussion check this site out;

https://apollo11space.com/why-cant-we-remake-the-rocketdyne-f1-engine/

Not in any way a competitive statement vs. the Raptor engines which are incredible, but wow, I am still appreciative of what the damn Rocketdyne/Saturn V guys pulled off.

The F1 was an amazing engineering feet by an measure. The F-1b program had a lot of promise, it eliminated huge amounts of the hand fitting an weird welding issues, and simplified the engine, while keeping the R&D that had gone in to the original combustion chambers and bell.

Hell, I'm still not sure they might not be a good option if we insist on keeping and SLS style expendable vehicle around in addition

Webb is really shaking things up regarding the age of the universe/Big Bang apparently. Umm, this could be a big deal.

Quote:

---

I'm not going to pretend that I have the scientific mental horsepower to understand the mechanics behind all of this, but science journals are quoting people who certainly should be able to understand it. If the universe has been expanding since its inception 14 billion years ago, the galaxies the furthest away from us should appear huge and have a certain amount of "red shift" in their light. But what Webb is showing us is almost exactly the opposite.

That's a problem for the big bang theory. If the universe was born in a monumental blast with everything traveling outward at incredible speed, all of that matter should still be traveling and expanding. But it doesn't appear to be. In fact, the universe might not really be expanding at all. And if it's not expanding, then it probably didn't come from a massive explosion at a single point in the void. If that's the case… where did all of this stuff come from?

There are more issues to deal with. The most distant galaxies Webb has located are being seen when they were as little as 400 million years old, as determined by when the big bang is assumed to have happened. That means their stars should all still be hot and blue in color as all young stars are. But many of them are cooler and reddish in color, signifying that they should be at least a billion years old.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

According to Big Bang theory, the most distant galaxies in the JWST images are seen as they were only 400-500 million years after the origin of the universe. Yet already some of the galaxies have shown stellar populations that are over a billion years old. Since nothing could have originated before the Big Bang, the existence of these galaxies demonstrates that the Big Bang did not occur.

---

Scientists are obviously more worried about having gotten the science wrong and having to figure out a new theory if that's the case. But assuming this is true, it also could have ramifications for both religious and spiritual contemplation of the origins of everything. Creationists assure us that God (whomever you take that to be) created everything we see in a very short amount of time. With a bit of squinting, you can match that up as a non-scientific analogy to the big bang theory. But what's the scientific explanation for trillions of galaxies that appear to all just be "hanging around?"

---

Couldn't they just be wrong about how suns age?

Seems to be the simpler explanation….

Eye roll time.

No real astronomers, physicists, or cosmologists are "worried" about having more data to examine the early universe. Identifying holes in established theories is what's good about actual progress.

This is more a blow for the weird scientism people that are obsessed with "settled science". Of course they usually want to make overreaching policy based on it.

My guess is that this is probably going to throw more numbers into the age of the universe formula instead of changing the whole paradigm.

OnlyForNow said:

---

Couldn't they just be wrong about how suns age?

Seems to be the simpler explanation….

---

For stars that are close to us, we think we have the timeline locked in for stellar life cycles because we can see them at all stages and we have literally millions of dats points to examine.

Unless there's some fundamental change that happened in the early universe (but way after the craziness of the "it's barely even physics" big bang time) this is a big outlier for how old things should be.

OnlyForNow said:

---

Couldn't they just be wrong about how suns age?

Seems to be the simpler explanation….

---

Sure. There's a lot of mystery about figuring out how particular kinds of stars/suns age/are formed early on.

I'm not smart enough to tell anyone the answers but I think it revolves around why certain kinds of stars could be in certain stages of life that quickly if in fact we are anywhere near correct in our understanding today of the age of the universe, which is something many have felt very confident about for the past 20 or 50 years. It's basically akin I guess to a historian suddenly learning that George Washington wasn't the first president.

Dark matter, and more importantly dark energy have been posited to explain an expanding universe for some time, and now we...think some other folks are maybe right about that being wrong, after all.

Quote:

---

According to Big Bang theory, the most distant galaxies in the JWST images are seen as they were only 400-500 million years after the origin of the universe. Yet already some of the galaxies have shown stellar populations that are over a billion years old. Since nothing could have originated before the Big Bang, the existence of these galaxies demonstrates that the Big Bang did not occur.

Just as there must be no galaxies older than the Big Bang, if the Big Bang hypothesis were valid, so theorists expected that as the JWST looked out further in space and back in time, there would be fewer and fewer galaxies and eventually nonea Dark Age in the cosmos.

But a paper to be published in Nature demonstrates that galaxies as massive as the Milky Way are common even a few hundred million years after the hypothesized Bang. The authors state that the new images show that there are at least 100,000 times as many galaxies as theorists predicted at redshifts more than 10. There is no way that so many large galaxies can be generated in so little time, so again no Big Bang.

While Big Bang theorists were shocked and panicked by these new results, Riccardo and I (and a few others) were not. In fact, a week before the JWST images were released we published online a paper that detailed accurately what the images would show. We could do this with confidence because more and more data of all kinds has been contradicting the Big Bang hypothesis for years.

The widely-publicized crisis in cosmology has drawn general attention to the failed predictions of the Big Bang hypothesis for the Hubble constant relating redshift to distance. But our papers, published over the past decades, have pointed to far more contradictions, each individually acknowledged by other researchers.

---

Again, I dunno, but it's always amusing to me to read about astro/theoretical physicists strongly/vehemently disagreeing with each other about 'big' issues. To their credit, they are a profession where it is somewhat common to change opinions over time completely, and it's just part of the process (thankfully, the politics of our world seem somewhat detached).

Good discussion. No one really understands time either. Our concept is limited by the "time" we are in. But it flows differently elsewhere.

I know most people here don't care about the SLS for whatever reason, but the first launch is set for 8-29 with a 2 hour launch window opening at 7:33AM Central Time.

Our live launch coverage for #Artemis I starts at 6:30am ET (10:30 UTC) on Monday, Aug. 29—but there's plenty more to tune in for!

Here's our full @NASAArtemis broadcast schedule, starting Aug. 22: https://t.co/fmvkq64yxj pic.twitter.com/NLp6K2JUE8

— NASA (@NASA) August 20, 2022