aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Lots of "wills" in that post.

What it came down to is NASA needed a rocket. SpaceX's rocket isn't ready. Whether or not the rocket development should have been outsourced to SpaceX in the first place is moot because it wasn't done.

At its core, the launch today is still a test flight. In my mind, moving forward with a rocket we have was the right call in the short term to keep the program moving forward (can't say on schedule because the schedule has already been blown).

To say the program is a bust and should be cancelled because the "best" rocket option isn't being used is short-sighted, IMO.

aTmAg said:

---

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?

---

SpaceX wouldn't be doing any of it without NASA, so there's that. I haven't seen SpaceX make it to the moon yet, so there's also that. And I say all that as a fan of SpaceX.

I'm just happy to see space progress again, and I look forward to what all the ventures are doing. Can't wait to see us make it to Mars, and I don't care what sticker is on the bumper. The best value will win out eventually, but will be built upon all the knowledge available.

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Lockheed does, too. But it's revenue tied to developing a specific deliverable to NASA's specifications.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say SpaceX is making money as a private company/competitor to NASA when that money is coming from government funds to make a product for a government agency. They are a government contractor in this just like Lockheed Martin is, and it's fundamentally an R&T endeavor. SpaceX is not selling tickets for rides to the moon (yet).

SpaceX wouldn't be building exploratory rockets and crew capsules to take people to the moon if NASA wasn't giving them money to do it. I know Elon said that's what he wanted to do, but let's be realistic…he needs NASA's support (and money) to do that.

There is no money/profit in moon landings/deep space exploration at this time other than what NASA/the government pays for it.

Malachi Constant said:

---

Pour one out for the 4 RS-25 engines that had a stellar career of returning to land to be re-used but are by now at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

---

This actually makes me sad. Those engines were workhorses.

Malachi Constant said:

---

Pour one out for the 4 RS-25 engines that had a stellar career of returning to land to be re-used but are by now at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

---

What's Rocketdyne for them pegged at? $1 billion a piece?

Malachi Constant said:

---

Pour one out for the 4 RS-25 engines that had a stellar career of returning to land to be re-used but are by now at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

---

Govt contractors dont stay in business by building things things once. They need a constant churn of sales to stay afloat.

Maybe Bezos will recover them like he did some of the Apollo engines

NASA announced May 1 it had awarded a contract to Aerojet valued at $1.79 billion to produce 18 RS-25 engines. Those engines will be produced for future flights of the SLS, which will use RS-25 engines originally built for the shuttle on its first four missions.

https://spacenews.com/aerojet-rocketdyne-defends-sls-engine-contract-costs/

TXTransplant said:

---

What it came down to is NASA needed a rocket. SpaceX's rocket isn't ready. Whether or not the rocket development should have been outsourced to SpaceX in the first place is moot because it wasn't done.

---

NASA didn't NEED a rocket. There is no incoming asteroid or other event that forced a hard deadline. They WANTED to relive the Apollo days out of pride. In fact, originally they thought of Falcon 9 as doing the "dirty work" of resupplying the space station while they did the "real" space exploration. Many in NASA felt "betrayed" when Space X announced the Starship, because that was supposed to be THEIR domain.

Quote:

---

At its core, the launch today is still a test flight. In my mind, moving forward with a rocket we have was the right call in the short term to keep the program moving forward (can't say on schedule because the schedule has already been blown).

---

It's so laughably the wrong move that it further proves that NASA needs to be gutted. They are incompetent.

Quote:

---

To say the program is a bust and should be cancelled because the "best" rocket option isn't being used is short-sighted, IMO.

---

It's a bust because each SLS launch costs several times more than SpaceX's entire budget for their first DECADE. We've already thrown billion dollar moon capable rockets into the ocean. That doesn't need to be proven AGAIN. As soon as Space X landed their first falcon 9, the SLS instantly became obsolete. At that very moment, NASA should have stopped work on SLS and figured out a way to move towards a reusable rocket. Even if that meant to start over.

Malachi Constant said:

---

Pour one out for the 4 RS-25 engines that had a stellar career of returning to land to be re-used but are by now at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

---

How far downrange does the core stage go? Those engines burn for quite a long time before MECO.

Well, with that perspective, why should NASA, SpaceX, or anyone else launch a rocket and return to the moon or go to Mars?

The whole project is nothing but one big pride/ego/vanity project, not just for NASA but for the US.

There will be some interesting things learned, but from a financial ROI perspective, nothing will ever justify the cost, regardless of what company/agency pursues it.

We aren't doing this because we need to, we are doing it because we can.

So for normal non space people, when will the first Artemis manned flight be? soon I suspect?

The snarky reply is never. But a few years is possible I believe.

Supposed to be the next one, Artemis 2. NASA currently says May 2024.

TXTransplant said:

---

Supposed to be the next one, Artemis 2. NASA currently says May 2024.

---

thanks, I like this thread, its really interesting and not really political, just good space talk

Idk if that's a revised date factoring in all the delays of this launch since September. After the first two attempts were scrubbed, my dad said they were really pushing it to make the next deadline.

That's part of the reason this launch was at night. They would have preferred a daytime launch but had to compromise to have any chance of keeping the schedule going forward.

TXTransplant said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Lockheed does, too. But it's revenue tied to developing a specific deliverable to NASA's specifications.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say SpaceX is making money as a private company/competitor to NASA when that money is coming from government funds to make a product for a government agency. They are a government contractor in this just like Lockheed Martin is, and it's fundamentally an R&T endeavor. SpaceX is not selling tickets for rides to the moon (yet).

---

I'm not having anything both ways. You act like Space X getting a contract was akin to them getting a subsidy. It is not. Them getting a contract is no different than Lockheed getting a contract. NASA is the customer and SpaceX/Lockheed are the suppliers. They are providing a service for a fee.

Quote:

---

SpaceX wouldn't be building exploratory rockets and crew capsules to take people to the moon if NASA wasn't giving them money to do it. I know Elon said that's what he wanted to do, but let's be realistic…he needs NASA's support (and money) to do that.

---

Have you been paying attention? He was developing starship without NASA using revenue he was earning from Falcon 9 launches. He launches more payload than everybody else combined. He can already launch payloads for a fraction of the price of anybody else and starship would be able to do so at a fraction of that already low cost. Unless they get unlucky, Starlink will provide a crap ton of revenue too. He is clearly pressing on with or without NASA.

Quote:

---

There is no money/profit in moon landings/deep space exploration at this time other than what NASA/the government pays for it.

---

Clearly Elon disagrees as he is throwing everything he has at it. But let's say you are right, and Elon decides it's not financially viable for him to go to Mars. Well it's 100X less financially viable for NASA to go to mars. If it would cost Musk $100B to to go Mars, then it would probably cost NASA $100T to go to Mars. If it's not worth him going, then it's not worth anybody going. At least right now. Maybe in a 100 years when other technology develops.

TXTransplant said:

---

Well, with that perspective, why should NASA, SpaceX, or anyone else launch a rocket and return to the moon or go to Mars?

The whole project is nothing but one big pride/ego/vanity project, not just for NASA but for the US.

There will be some interesting things learned, but from a financial ROI perspective, nothing will ever justify the cost, regardless of what company/agency pursues it.

We aren't doing this because we need to, we are doing it because we can.

---

If by "we" you mean NASA then we can not. SLS has been such a joke to get to the moon, imagine the laughing stock they would make of themselves trying to go to Mars.

The ONLY chance we have going to Mars in our lifetime is through the private sector like Space X. And if they can't do it yet, then it's not worth doing. We should not be hyperinflating ourselves into poverty to plant base on Mars. That would be idiotic.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

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

---

They got to 607 mph in 52 seconds.

Replay of our livestream of last night’s #Artemis1 launch! I’m so insanely proud of so many things today. Proud the teams at @NASA, @BoeingSpace, @LockheedMartin, @esa, @ulalaunch & @northropgrumman for finally launching this beast! But I’m so proud of our stream!!! [Thread] pic.twitter.com/IVs9enzMoG

— Everyday Astronaut (@Erdayastronaut) November 16, 2022

New World Ag said:

---

Malachi Constant said:

---

Pour one out for the 4 RS-25 engines that had a stellar career of returning to land to be re-used but are by now at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

---

How far downrange does the core stage go? Those engines burn for quite a long time before MECO.

---

A few hundred miles and 70ish miles up. Based on the first stage burn of 8 minutes (similar to the shuttle) and that the fuel tanks of the shuttle all burned up in the atmosphere (without engines attached, since the RS-25s were on the orbiter itself), I would imagine the RS-25s were also largely disintegrated, with remaining bits crashing into the ocean.

aTmAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Lockheed does, too. But it's revenue tied to developing a specific deliverable to NASA's specifications.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say SpaceX is making money as a private company/competitor to NASA when that money is coming from government funds to make a product for a government agency. They are a government contractor in this just like Lockheed Martin is, and it's fundamentally an R&T endeavor. SpaceX is not selling tickets for rides to the moon (yet).

---

I'm not having anything both ways. You act like Space X getting a contract was akin to them getting a subsidy. It is not. Them getting a contract is no different than Lockheed getting a contract. NASA is the customer and SpaceX/Lockheed are the suppliers. They are providing a service for a fee.

Quote:

---

SpaceX wouldn't be building exploratory rockets and crew capsules to take people to the moon if NASA wasn't giving them money to do it. I know Elon said that's what he wanted to do, but let's be realistic…he needs NASA's support (and money) to do that.

---

Have you been paying attention? He was developing starship without NASA using revenue he was earning from Falcon 9 launches. He launches more payload than everybody else combined. He can already launch payloads for a fraction of the price of anybody else and starship would be able to do so at a fraction of that already low cost. Unless they get unlucky, Starlink will provide a crap ton of revenue too. He is clearly pressing on with or without NASA.

Quote:

---

There is no money/profit in moon landings/deep space exploration at this time other than what NASA/the government pays for it.

---

Clearly Elon disagrees as he is throwing everything he has at it. But let's say you are right, and Elon decides it's not financially viable for him to go to Mars. Well it's 100X less financially viable for NASA to go to mars. If it would cost Musk $100B to to go Mars, then it would probably cost NASA $100T to go to Mars. If it's not worth him going, then it's not worth anybody going. At least right now. Maybe in a 100 years when other technology develops.

---

You are having it both ways. You say NASA is the customer…we agree on that point. But there are no other customers for a rocket and a lunar landing vehicle!

I will agree that there is a bigger market for satellites and certain payloads, but even taking astronauts to the space station isn't a "market". It's a service they are providing to NASA.

I'm not saying you hold this viewpoint, but I've heard/seen plenty of people on this forum and other places say NASA and the federal government is nothing but one big subsidy for corporations like Lockheed. The criticism of that arrangement, and others like it, has long been an argument against NASA, even before SpaceX was a player.

So, it's hypocritical to say Lockheed is a government leech and not say the same about SpaceX.

During the first 10 years of operation, SpaceX operated off of $1 billion, and half that came from NASA contracts. You simply cannot say they have done all of their development from profits from Falcon 9 launches and NASA money didn't play a role. Even Elon himself has said (many times) that the company wouldn't be where it is today without NASA contracts.

And despite all of Elon's big talk about space exploration, I personally don't believe he would be continuing to pursue any of this without NASA $. Because from the perspective of his company it IS revenue. They are getting rich(er) using taxpayer money. It's a mutually beneficial relationship at this point, and there is too much money on the table for him to not accept and leverage those contracts.

Just because an endeavor isn't "financially viable" for a private company doesn't inherently mean NASA shouldn't pursue it. We never would have gone to the moon in the first place if "financially viable" had been a criteria. We go because we can and want to establish dominance in the field. One would argue the whole reason the space program was as successful as it was is because it was never expected to make money or have any ROI in the conventional sense.

Like it or not, the economics for a company like SpaceX, who has ideas of going public in a few years, are completely different.

The only reason anyone cares about the "economics" of NASA is because of concerns about taxpayer waste. But let's face it, the government will end up footing the bill, regardless of delays and budget overages. And if you are worried about that, I already know the only real option is to dismantle NASA completely. But that's not ever going to happen as long as the SpaceXs, Lockheeds, Boeings, etc are making money from partnering with NASA. Even if NASA doesn't do the work, they are the keepers of the money to pay others to do it.

And dramatic much??? We are not hyperinflating ourselves into poverty to go to Mars. As others have pointed out, we waste orders of magnitude more money on other things. NASA's budget is literally <0.5% of the total federal budget. The most it's ever been was 4.4% of the total and that was back in the mid-60s. It hasn't been over 1% since the early 90s.

Bregxit said:

---

TxT you picked the wrong person to argue with. He is like the terminator of arguing. Never stops, never relents, never gets tired.

---

Then I've met my match. Just what I needed today. I'm in the mood to point out hypocrisy.

Hate on the space program all you want, but don't deny that Elon is putting his hand in the NASA/federal govt pot and happily taking his share.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

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.

---

Putting a nuclear reactor on the moon seems like one of the best ideas I've ever heard of.

Dead serious.

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!'"

"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.

---

You do know that Starship already has a capable thrust of 16 million lbs, right? You do know that it is a bigger rocket with a payload 4 times that of SLS and 1/500th of the launch cost? The next SLS won't be finished for at least another year and a half, and after that, the mobile launch platform will need to be entirely rebuilt and that could take another 5 years.

Currently, the replacement for the first orbital starship which is preflight testing now is nearing completion at a small fraction of the cost of SLS. SpaceX has built two Starship launch facilities and are standing up two rocket production facilities that build the entire rocket, engines and all its systems in-house.

In the last year SpaceX has put more mass to orbit than every other launch provider combined. NASA and SpaceX are definitely reliant on one another as business partners currently but I think you have it backwards as to who is in the driver's seat. Without SpaceX, no more rides to ISS. Russia is off the table, ULA has a long way to go and so does Sierra Space, and Blue Origin.

I am glad SLS got off the ground. It's a nice rocket. But the program has been an embarrassment.

OnlyForNow said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

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.

---

Putting a nuclear reactor on the moon seems like one of the best ideas I've ever heard of.

Dead serious.

---

NASA has been super hesitant to allow significant enough quantities of nuclear fuel to be sent to space because of the RUD problem upon launch.

The problem is Starship hasn't put anything in orbit. A prototype was launched in May 2021 but it only reached an altitude of 6 miles (low earth orbit is up to 1200 miles).
The first Orion test flight, EFT-1, launched the capsule to an altitude of 3600 miles (that was on a Delta IV Heavy).

I believe SpaceX is targeting a December test flight, but that's been pushed pack several times.

I'm not saying that means SpaceX shouldn't be a part of NASA's future. I'm saying that rocket wasn't an option if NASA wanted to stay on its current timeline and test Orion in lunar orbit.

The other option would have been to just wait. Obviously some people here think that was the better option. I disagree.

Any discussion on the x-37B Orbital Test Vehicle coming back to earth and landing the 12th?

Didn't see anything about it, miss anything?

OnlyForNow said:

---

Any discussion on the x-37B Orbital Test Vehicle coming back to earth and landing the 12th?

Didn't see anything about it, miss anything?

---

IWas there ever any revelation about what that thing does up in orbit?

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.

---

Payment for services isn't revenue? Since when?

It is very, very clear you either work in the SLS program, or really do have a family member in the program. Not trying to be rude, but every one of your points is something Boeing has continually brought up. They're very much based on outdated beliefs, mis characterizations of commercial space, and the continued willful refusal to accept anything besides senator Shelby's vision of a lunar mission that has become entrenched at NASA.

SLS wasn't even the most cost efficient way to get to lunar orbit when it was contracted, and was not really what NASA wanted. It was demanded by the senate, and exists in the modern era solely because they want it to.

It's a 5 billion dollar a launch vehicle that could be replace with two existing launches for ~500 million. Just like the shuttle, it will lock us in to one mission for decades as gateway is slowly built out, and a single moon mission a year struggles along. It has no real capacity beyond lunar exploration at this point, and will suck NASAs budget dry for decades......that's if the MLS didn't suffer catastrophic damage.

You talk like taking 33billion and a decade on a rocket that was supposed to cost less than half that and fly 5 years ago should inspire confidence.