TXTransplant said:

---

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!

---

We weren't only talking about the lunar mission, but Space X as a whole. And there are a crap ton of customers for rockets. Hell the DoD spends more on space than NASA.

Quote:

---

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.

---

NASA is their customer. Not a subsidy.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Neither are leeches. Anybody who says that is an idiot. My point is that NASA itself has no business existing. Especially now. It is not only unconstitutional, it provides a serviced where the supply curve is a mile above the demand curve. Such services should never be provided until the curves cross. Especially when we have a huge spending problem and record high inflation.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I didn't say they funded all of their development privately. I said they funded falcon 1 privately. And I'm not claiming Space X did not sign contracts with NASA. My point there is that it was not a subsidy. Elon pursued contracts with NASA because that was where he felt he was most likely to get a contract. That doesn't mean if NASA didn't exist then he wouldn't have gotten the money elsewhere (like DoD which spends more on space than NASA).

Quote:

---

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.

---

The idea that he wouldn't do any of this without NASA contracts is provably untrue. Long before the lunar contract, he was building starship with his own money. He chose methane for the Raptor engine because they could produce that on Mars. The lunar contract came way later and was simply Space X pitching their existing mars plan to NASA for the moon. By the time they were awarded it they had already conducted 9 starship hopper tests.

Quote:

---

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.

---

We shouldn't have gone to the moon in the first place. Our money printing for that along with the Vietnam war caused the inflation of the 70s. In fact, it can be argued that that lead Nixon getting us off the gold standard in 71. That has enabled access money printing to continue to this day. So the Apollo program can be (largely) blamed for enabling the inflation we endure now.

Quote:

---

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

---

Musk has said he would not take it public if he would stop their mission to Mars.

Quote:

---

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.

---

That "only" reason is a HUGE reason. And government doesn't foot the bill, we do. Ether through taxes or inflation. I don't like my wealth being blown on huge wastes of money.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I'm saying that if Musk punts on it and NASA takes over, it is going to cost a LOT more than the Apollo mission. And that would ruin us.

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).

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.

---

A lot of SpaceX's revenue is from Falcon 9 launches as a service, not product development. The bolded is also incorrect. Just because SpaceX has taken a NASA contract for product development doesn't preclude them from being a private competitor. They're already launching payloads privately.

Musk probably doesn't need NASA to go to the moon. They're developing starship regardless. NASA just recognizes it as the best and cheapest option moving forward.

That was fun to watch last night as I never really got to experience a moon launch. I'm told I was actually at one of the Apollo launches as a very small child, but I have no memory of it at all. It makes me nostalgic for how I felt about the space program and the shuttle in the 80s. I've grown a bit cynical about it in recent decades.

Go back and read my other posts. It's recorded as revenue of course. But when you have a NASA contract to provide a specific deliverable to NASA and no one else, that's it. That's the sole income stream for that effort and product. It's not like SpaceX is building lunar orbit capable rockets and lunar landing vehicles for a whole bunch of different customers. And they aren't going to sell these rockets to anyone other than NASA.

SpaceX is making a lot of money providing a very specific service/product to a government entity. There is no "open market" for space rockets and vehicles.

The revenue is tax dollars to do what is essentially R&T work (at least as is related to the moon).

Except they ARE building their lunar rocket and super heavy lift vehicle for a whole myriad of other customers. One of the first scheduled flights of a manned starship is slated to be a circumlunar flight by a private party.

They're also launching privately funded LEO missions, and have more coming rapidly.

You do know falcon 9 has sent things to the moon right? Or that spacex outlaunched the Russians, Chinese, all the other US providers, and I believe the rest of the world combined...

TXTransplant said:

---

Go back and read my other posts. It's recorded as revenue of course. But when you have a NASA contract to provide a specific deliverable to NASA and no one else, that's it. That's the sole income stream for that effort and product. It's not like SpaceX is building lunar orbit capable rockets and lunar landing vehicles for a whole bunch of different customers. And they aren't going to sell these rockets to anyone other than NASA.

SpaceX is making a lot of money providing a very specific service/product to a government entity. There is no "open market" for space rockets and vehicles.

The revenue is tax dollars to do what is essentially R&T work (at least as is related to the moon).

---

What are you talking about? There is a huge market to launch crap in space with rockets. NASA budget was under $30B and that is the largest government budget in the world. Yet the space industry as a whole was $469B last year.

TXTransplant said:

---

Go back and read my other posts. It's recorded as revenue of course. But when you have a NASA contract to provide a specific deliverable to NASA and no one else, that's it. That's the sole income stream for that effort and product. It's not like SpaceX is building lunar orbit capable rockets and lunar landing vehicles for a whole bunch of different customers. And they aren't going to sell these rockets to anyone other than NASA.

SpaceX is making a lot of money providing a very specific service/product to a government entity. There is no "open market" for space rockets and vehicles.

The revenue is tax dollars to do what is essentially R&T work (at least as is related to the moon).

---

Architects and contractors build one off buildings for the government all the time. Are you really suggesting that what they're being paid isn't revenue or that they can't survive without the government?

SpaceX doesn't sell its rockets. Why would they? They sell a service of launching your stuff on their rockets. They sell that service to lots of people.

WRT to starship and a lunar capable rocket, starship has been in development longer than SpaceX has had a lunar lander contract with NASA. SpaceX was planning and developing starship in 2016. NASA gave them a contract to modify starship for their requirements, but SpaceX was already well on their way to having a launch and landing vehicle on their own

PJYoung said:

---

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.

---

I like it.

Instead of 0-60 for cars, we have 0-600 while leaving the gravity well.

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 think they may land on the rim of Shackleton Crater near the south pole. Inside the crater it is always shielded from the sun. On the rim they will catch some sunlight. But they've detected water ice in the crater.

I'm hoping we at least lay claim to this strategic region.

aTmAg said:

---

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.

---

Oh here we go

Bregxit said:

---

I love Tim's enthusiasm. It is awesome.

---

He's pretty cool. I think he started as a wedding/miscellaneous photographer, and caught the space bug, and is now at the point where he knows Elon and is able to have technical conversations with him (and even gave Elon an idea that was implemented on Starship). Pretty impressive.

Right…was that the announcement back in 2017 that they were going to send two billionaire Japanese passengers on a mission beyond the moon in late 2018?

Or the second flight, announced earlier this year, on what's supposed to be a 12-seat vehicle. The schedule right now is "sometime later this decade".

I'll give you that selling seats on an untested spacecraft that doesn't actually exist (the existing Dragon only seats 7) to rich people for undisclosed sums of money is a great stream of "revenue". Or maybe just a creative form of venture capital.

But I doubt those seats alone are enough to fund development of the system required for an Artemis-type mission without the NASA money, too. Especially since SpaceX said they've only sold three so far.

I will also concede that the Starlink internet/phone service is a great plan to generate revenue. But that part of the business didn't come along until long after SpaceX had taken billions in NASA money. Including a $5 billion contract to transport astronauts to the ISS.

And, yes, the Falcon has launched two lunar missions. The first was an Israeli lunar lander in 2019. The launch went off with no problem, but the lander itself crashed-landed on the moon.

The second was just this past August, and it was a South Korean lunar orbiter with a payload mass of 1500 kg. Orion weighs 25 tons.

Again, great progress for a private company. But not sufficient for Artemis at this time.

The truth is, while what SpaceX has accomplished is significant, but it in no way compares to putting a crew vehicle the size of Orion into lunar orbit. I have no doubt that one day SpaceX will be able to do that, but they aren't there yet. And I don't think it was in NASA's best interest to wait.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

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.

---

Not affiliated with Boeing or the SLS in any way.

Just noting that for the program to stay on its current schedule, that was the option available.

SpaceX doesn't have a rocket available to launch Orion. Will they have one eventually? Probably. But they don't right now.

Should SpaceX been given the contact to build a rocket instead of the SLS program? Maybe, but that's water under the bridge because that wasn't the decision that was made at the time. And that doesn't mean the entire Artemis program and missions should be scrapped.

Not gonna quote because it's too long.

But this is where we agree to disagree. You think NASA has no place in the space program. You think we should have never gone to the moon. I fundamentally disagree. And I don't see NASA going away anytime soon. For better or worse, we are stuck with it.

And I never said SpaceX hasn't had any revenue outside of NASA (and DoD, which I didn't specifically mention, but I'm well aware they spend more money on space than NASA).

What I said (or tried to say) was I don't think SpaceX could do what they do when it comes to lunar orbit and lunar landings without NASA contracts. They clearly have the low earth orbit stuff managed (and are good at it), and that success gives them leverage to do other things. But no private, for-profit company is going to build rockets and send crewed vehicles to the moon or Mars for the hell of it. Musk might have said that when he first started the company, but it's too big for that now. This isn't a hobby or visionary pipe dream anymore. Not to mention once it goes public, I think the amount of risk the company will be able to take on will be more limited. There is a reason astronauts aren't employees of private companies.

FWIW, I think the idea of space tourism (especially beyond low earth orbit) is kind of ridiculous at this point in time, too. But rich people and their money can be easily parted.

We can't know the actual numbers because SpaceX is privately held. But I don't think the company would exist in its current state had it not gotten those first few NASA contracts. Musk himself has said as much. And they have continued to leverage that money to grow.

Now that they have the NASA/DoD money, it's an important part of their business model. It's helped push the company's value north of $100 billion and no doubt helped them get additional private investment money.

Musk's initial personal investment was a big one, but it could only take the company so far. He had to diversify, and considering what the company does, it was a no-brainer to go after NASA and DoD money.

Like I said in a previous post, SpaceX is not a competitor of NASA; they are partners.

TXTransplant said:

---

Right…was that the announcement back in 2017 that they were going to send two billionaire Japanese passengers on a mission beyond the moon in late 2018?

Or the second flight, announced earlier this year, on what's supposed to be a 12-seat vehicle. The schedule right now is "sometime later this decade".

I'll give you that selling seats on an untested spacecraft that doesn't actually exist (the existing Dragon only seats 7) to rich people for undisclosed sums of money is a great stream of "revenue". Or maybe just a creative form of venture capital.

But I doubt those seats alone are enough to fund development of the system required for an Artemis-type mission without the NASA money, too. Especially since SpaceX said they've only sold three so far.

I will also concede that the Starlink internet/phone service is a great plan to generate revenue. But that part of the business didn't come along until long after SpaceX had taken billions in NASA money. Including a $5 billion contract to transport astronauts to the ISS.

And, yes, the Falcon has launched two lunar missions. The first was an Israeli lunar lander in 2019. The launch went off with no problem, but the lander itself crashed-landed on the moon.

The second was just this past August, and it was a South Korean lunar orbiter with a payload mass of 1500 kg. Orion weighs 25 tons.

Again, great progress for a private company. But not sufficient for Artemis at this time.

The truth is, while what SpaceX has accomplished is significant, but it in no way compares to putting a crew vehicle the size of Orion into lunar orbit. I have no doubt that one day SpaceX will be able to do that, but they aren't there yet. And I don't think it was in NASA's best interest to wait.

---

They've waited and as someone else said will be another 5-10 years before anything really happens. SpaceX would embarrass the hell out of that timeline at 1/10th the cost. It's not a race to get to stage one testing, it's a race to actually get there and be affordable while you're at it - sustainable.

ABATTBQ11 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).

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.

---

A lot of SpaceX's revenue is from Falcon 9 launches as a service, not product development. The bolded is also incorrect. Just because SpaceX has taken a NASA contract for product development doesn't preclude them from being a private competitor. They're already launching payloads privately.

Musk probably doesn't need NASA to go to the moon. They're developing starship regardless. NASA just recognizes it as the best and cheapest option moving forward.

---

I think this is wear the discussion diverged. I agree SpaceX has gotten very good at low earth orbit launches. That is a business for them (albeit one that provides a lot of services for the government, but they are doing it and doing it well). They filled the vacuum that was left when the shuttle retired.

I disagree that SpaceX goes to the moon (or Mars) without NASA (caveat: unless something drastic happens and NASA is dismantled/eliminated). I know that's what Musk said before NASA gave them the contracts for starship, but I don't think it would have happened. I think SpaceX's contribution to lunar landings/colonization/space station (whatever you want to call it) will be as a NASA contractor.

Glad to see the interest in this thread.

To me, it's pretty clear nothing will happen with SLS unless/until there is a launch failure (or worse, a fatality in deep/orbital space). At least, that is the case for the next 5-7 years. We might as well embrace it I suppose as we approach manned launches in a few years.

I believe Starship will make it essentially irrelevant past that timeline (2030 or so), but that is contingent on the somewhat absurd/insane 'catching' mechanism working, and working not just once or twice, but reliably.

I'm as critical as anyone of SLS whether it's disposing of RS-25s, use of SRBs to keep thiokol engineers busy until the minuteman iii is replaced, replicating the Shuttle ET diameter, etc…

But there is no denying that this Franken-rocket is an awesome machine.

Just to be clear, a failure of SLS would occur at launch or shortly thereafter. Once Orion is on its way to the moon or beyond in deep space, all that's really left besides the crew module is the European Service Module.

Agreed, when it's not leaking, creaking around on an over-stressed transporter. It's an impressive amount of power.

Of course, I should disclose that I follow the USS New Jersey guy on youtube though. Still an impressive ship too, even if it is a dinosaur. Frankly, I think the engineers who laid that out are just as impressive to this day.

TXTransplant said:

---

Just to be clear, a failure of SLS would occur at launch or shortly thereafter. Once Orion is on its way to the moon or beyond in deep space, all that's really left besides the crew module is the European Service Module.

---

Just to be crystal clear, I'm not debating you about anything here right now.

I appreciate that you've driven a bunch of discussion/consideration of the topic/thread, I'm just tired this week/right now.

lb3 said:

---

But there is no denying that this Franken-rocket is an awesome machine.

---

I despise the thing for the damage it's doing to the program, and the stupidity of it....

....doesn't mean the whole shift wasn't in here last night watching it go, and it wasn't a bad ass launch!

nortex97 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

Just to be clear, a failure of SLS would occur at launch or shortly thereafter. Once Orion is on its way to the moon or beyond in deep space, all that's really left besides the crew module is the European Service Module.

---

Just to be crystal clear, I'm not debating you about anything here right now.

I appreciate that you've driven a bunch of discussion/consideration of the topic/thread, I'm just tired this week/right now.

---

Actually, to be clear, I should correct myself. Technically, the entire launch vehicle is the SLS. The core stage and boosters used at launch separate early. That's the 3 engines, the big orange tank, and the boosters. I just assumed most people think of those components when referring to it.

What remains to power the crew capsule into deep space is still technically the SLS. But even the NASA website calls the SLS the "rocket" and says the "rocket" falls away from Orion once it's in space. After that core stage separation, what's left is a second stage which propels Orion out of Earth's gravity before also separating. It has a (much smaller) tank and one engine. There is a different second stage configuration planned for Artemis 4 that is designed to have four engines.

I replied to that post thinking about the current configuration, and should not have assumed that the additional info was too much detail for this conversation.

For today's flight…
https://spacenews.com/sls-launches-artemis-1-mission/

The SLS lifted off from Launch Complex 39B here at 1:47 a.m. Eastern. The rocket's upper stage, called the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS), separated from the core stage eight and a half minutes after liftoff. The Orion spacecraft separated from the ICPS nearly two hours after liftoff, after the stage completed a translunar injection burn.

TXTransplant said:

---

ABATTBQ11 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).

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.

---

A lot of SpaceX's revenue is from Falcon 9 launches as a service, not product development. The bolded is also incorrect. Just because SpaceX has taken a NASA contract for product development doesn't preclude them from being a private competitor. They're already launching payloads privately.

Musk probably doesn't need NASA to go to the moon. They're developing starship regardless. NASA just recognizes it as the best and cheapest option moving forward.

---

I think this is wear the discussion diverged. I agree SpaceX has gotten very good at low earth orbit launches. That is a business for them (albeit one that provides a lot of services for the government, but they are doing it and doing it well). They filled the vacuum that was left when the shuttle retired.

I disagree that SpaceX goes to the moon (or Mars) without NASA (caveat: unless something drastic happens and NASA is dismantled/eliminated). I know that's what Musk said before NASA gave them the contracts for starship, but I don't think it would have happened. I think SpaceX's contribution to lunar landings/colonization/space station (whatever you want to call it) will be as a NASA contractor.

---

Disagree. NASA is being passed up. SpaceX may build a starship based lander for NASA, but they're building lots of starships and boosters for themselves. They've taken over the LEO market, and they're moving much faster at heavy lift and lunar development than NASA. NASA has finally gotten Artemis off the ground, but it is incredibly expensive and single use. SpaceX should be getting the starship super heavy into orbit in the next few months and as soon as December. By the time NASA is actually putting someone on the moon with Artemis, SpaceX is likely to have or be very close to a reusable, cost effective heavy lift vehicle that will price Artemis out, and NASA will either buy SpaceX services or have to start from scratch. NASA won't be able to compete. They'll be a research agency building probes and satellites. SpaceX will be doing orbital and lunar development, and probably going to Mars on their own, because all of rockets and hardware to do so will be theirs.

I'll admit I'm biased, but it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where NASA completely concedes experimental, deep space exploration to SpaceX. I don't doubt SpaceX will provide hardware, but I'm thinking it will end up being a collaborative effort under the direction of NASA.

It's also hard for me to imagine a private company taking on all that risk, especially if SpaceX goes public. I know Musk says he doesn't want to do that, but if the other aspects of the company (ie, low Earth orbit and Starlink) continue to grow as projected, I think the business focus will be to bring in as much revenue from lower-risk endeavors and "profit" off the riskier ventures by functioning as a NASA contractor.

I say this because NASA hasn't really built anything in decades. They've designed components, but they don't manufacture. They outsource that, and a lot of companies have made a lot of money building hardware that NASA ultimately assumes all of the risk for when it launches.

A big part of what's influencing my perspective is a book I read about the Columbia disaster and recovery efforts. Columbia is seen as a NASA failure (and it was), but NASA didn't build the shuttle, Rockwell International did. NASA assumed all responsibility for operating the vehicle, maintaining the vehicle, and bringing the crews home safely. I personally don't believe a private, for-profit company is ultimately going to be willing take on the risk of potentially having to take responsibility for the death of a crew should another disaster happen. Because even a single incident like that could put a company out of business. This is going to sound terrible, but I don't know how else to say it - I think the optics are better when a government agency takes the fall for any failures that occur as part of an experimental program. NASA has been able to recover from its disasters because they are viewed as part of a bigger noble endeavor for the greater good of society. I don't think a private company will be so easily forgiven.

I know a couple of people in this thread have asked how NASA could stop SpaceX from launching a moon landing or Mars mission on its own, but I don't think they are going to have to. I think it will be a mutual agreement that both sides see as beneficial - SpaceX builds the hardware and NASA manages (and accepts all the risks for) the launch and mission success. NASA doesn't have a business and profits and investors to protect. SpaceX does.

The man founded the company because the Russians pissed him off trying to launch a privately funded Mars launch. His goal has ALWAYS been long range exploration through a self sustaining company. He's even stated he has not gone into space himself because he's afraid SpaceX would not continue on the path he has set for it if an accident occurred. You don't have to imagine anything, they play their cards on the table.

He already has two rockets capable of delivering unmanned landers to the moon. One of them actually can take their own crew capsule TLI if it's man rated. They went from mariachis and tacos, to that capacity in 20 years. His 65 ton to LEO vehicle also costs about a tenth of the SLS( wh8ch is maxed at 95 tons for the foreseeable future, the hardware for blk 1b is 5y minimum out)

The SLS concept date back to at least 2005 and constellation, and formally has been in development for 11 years. It already had engines belt and flying, an SRB design, and a "legacy contractor" in place to build it on start up. Thus far they have spent over 33 billion dollars, need several billion more to restart engine production, and for the next decade or more will cost upwards of 5 billion per launch.


I am not 100% sold on Musks plan, I personally believe on orbit construction using a non man rated starship type stack and EOR is a better, more sustainable option that has been massively hampered by the Boeing/lockheed/Grumman lobbyist force, and the egotistical pork barreling of men like former senator Shelby. However, at this juncture, spacex certainly has the best plan going forward, and spending the 5+billion a year for one launch to help expedite starship development... or funding the man rating of falcon heavy and an EOR mission using it and Vulcan/centaur or Vulcan/ACES for a transfer stage, which would have us launching with 2 years, still using Orion( which is ancient tech by modern standards, but looks to be a reasonable spacecraft for lunar operations).

I'm not a SpaceX only homer, I'm just anti cost + programs that, much like shuttle, are hamstrining our ability to advance exploration for the sake of two company's pocket books.

Couple of points that I definitely agree with…

After killing the shuttle, in part because it was so expensive, it is frustrating to see that costs have gotten so out of control for a non-reusable vehicle.

I think safety of the new system, particularly the crew capsule, was a much bigger part of the equation than is appreciated.

It's interesting that you say Orion is old technology. The program as it is structured now goes back to about 2005. The delays have been awful, in part because for several years there was no rocket to even take it to space, but we've covered that. I think at some point, for better or worse, NASA decided to try and just save face (which clearly has backfired with a lot of people).

But now you've got a crew vehicle, which because of all the delays, is never going to be the newest technology. With all the delays, they're doing to end up with a 20 year old design by the time this thing flies with any crew in it. That looks even worse written out than it sounded in my head, and it's not exactly a ringing endorsement for an agency that wants everyone to believe they are the world leaders in manned space flight.

But I remember specifically asking my dad WHY they were going back with "old technology". The shuttle was such a beautiful machine, and here they were designing something that looked (to me) exactly like Apollo.

His answer was related to the launch abort system. They wanted to be able to separate the crew vehicle from the rocket should something go wrong during launch. My impression in those early years was everything hinged on demonstrating the LAS worked, since it has never been part of a crew capsule before. I think having an LAS that they are confident (as they can be) will work drove the decision to stick with Orion.

SpaceX wouldn't have even been in the running to compete for the original contract to develop the next crew capsule. The company barely existed when those decisions were made.

Typing this all out, it's clear at some point that all of this became too big to fail. Too much time, effort, and money put into something that probably has a reasonably high chance of success (despite the ridiculous cost and delays).

SpaceX has clearly proven itself with the less glamorous but critical Dragon launches to ISS. But that progress came kind of too late to help Artemis.

I completely understand why a lot of people here think the program should have been scrapped and turned over to SpaceX, but I think the program passed the "point of no return" years ago. And I'm not as confident that SpaceX is going to beat NASA, but it certainly will be interesting to watch.

If the goal is to go back to the moon (and beyond), I have no doubt NASA can make that happen. It just won't be on-time and it will be over budget.

Live feed still available?

🔊SOUND ON🔊
POV: You’re 4,000 feet away from NASA’s #Artemis I launching to the Moon🌕 pic.twitter.com/b6vugkQ009

— 📸Trevor Mahlmann (@TrevorMahlmann) November 16, 2022

This is a timelapse of the #Orion spacecraft leaving Earth.#Artemis1 pic.twitter.com/10c1e8lQBB

— Paul Byrne (@ThePlanetaryGuy) November 16, 2022

Not necessarily space related, but really cool, and some of y'all might enjoy.

From: Turbo Jet
To: Ram Jet

Same Engine.

Hypersonic aircraft company Hermeus announces it successfully passed a key testing milestone, performing the transition of turbojet to ramjet with its Chimera engine – necessary for its vehicles to take off from a regular runway and then accelerate:https://t.co/qAZuZ3vGIs pic.twitter.com/UeRTjrweQS

— Michael Sheetz (@thesheetztweetz) November 17, 2022

That is pretty cool.

That looks like a lot of thrust! Environmentalist wackos will hate this one, lol!

Thats essentially the test plane from Top Gun: Maverick IRL!!

TXTransplant said:

---

I'll admit I'm biased, but it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where NASA completely concedes experimental, deep space exploration to SpaceX. I don't doubt SpaceX will provide hardware, but I'm thinking it will end up being a collaborative effort under the direction of NASA.

It's also hard for me to imagine a private company taking on all that risk, especially if SpaceX goes public. I know Musk says he doesn't want to do that, but if the other aspects of the company (ie, low Earth orbit and Starlink) continue to grow as projected, I think the business focus will be to bring in as much revenue from lower-risk endeavors and "profit" off the riskier ventures by functioning as a NASA contractor.

I say this because NASA hasn't really built anything in decades. They've designed components, but they don't manufacture. They outsource that, and a lot of companies have made a lot of money building hardware that NASA ultimately assumes all of the risk for when it launches.

A big part of what's influencing my perspective is a book I read about the Columbia disaster and recovery efforts. Columbia is seen as a NASA failure (and it was), but NASA didn't build the shuttle, Rockwell International did. NASA assumed all responsibility for operating the vehicle, maintaining the vehicle, and bringing the crews home safely. I personally don't believe a private, for-profit company is ultimately going to be willing take on the risk of potentially having to take responsibility for the death of a crew should another disaster happen. Because even a single incident like that could put a company out of business. This is going to sound terrible, but I don't know how else to say it - I think the optics are better when a government agency takes the fall for any failures that occur as part of an experimental program. NASA has been able to recover from its disasters because they are viewed as part of a bigger noble endeavor for the greater good of society. I don't think a private company will be so easily forgiven.

I know a couple of people in this thread have asked how NASA could stop SpaceX from launching a moon landing or Mars mission on its own, but I don't think they are going to have to. I think it will be a mutual agreement that both sides see as beneficial - SpaceX builds the hardware and NASA manages (and accepts all the risks for) the launch and mission success. NASA doesn't have a business and profits and investors to protect. SpaceX does.

---

As already noted, that is exactly what Musk envisions for SpaceX and why they will ultimately surpass NASA.

Musk is no stranger to risk, and I think everyone who would venture to space knows the risks as well. That said, SpaceX has built up a very reliable track record with falcon rockets that I see translating to starship. The difference between NASA and a private company is that NASA generally lacks accountability. Look at Challenger. They killed the crew because they insisted on launching when told by Morton Thiokol's engineers that they shouldn't, but afterwards the decision making paradigm and willingness to accept anomalies so long as missions were deemed successful didn't change. That's how Columbia was lost as well. With Challenger, they had launch weather colder than they'd ever had it. With Columbia, they had a chunk of foam larger than any that had struck the orbiter before. Very different accidents, but essentially the same root cause because the managers and decision makers at NASA continued the culture of, "Well, this is the worst we've seen it, but it didn't kill us last time so we'll keep going." Yet, NASA is still around. It's not because of some noble mission, it's because they're a part of the government and there is a multi-year delay between ****ups and concluding investigations. In that time, funding is allocated and new endeavors are started, and no one is going to kill the organization and its current work over something that happened years ago and they've since "fixed".

SpaceX is also taking on the risk already as a services provider when they launch dragon capsules. They're responsible for people. They're also responsible for expensive payloads. They're not strangers here, and I see nothing doing them from going to Mars or the moon simply because they can. Even if they fail, and people die, I doubt they're going to get the vitriol or disdain you expect. Any such mission is going to be viewed as exploratory and dangerous by default. It doesn't matter who does it or why.

SpaceX has to operate as a business, yes, but as of now it is private and will remain so. There is money to be made beyond LEO. I could see a day in the next century or two where SpaceX is extracting raw materials from other planets or asteroids or operates 0g manufacturing facilities beyond LEO. Going to the moon and Mars would be excellent R&D opportunities for sized SpaceX to test technologies and processes to support those ventures. There IS a business case.