I don’t believe the shuttle stack had the energy/velocity to perform this mission. It was a one trick wonder. Take off, put a satellite in orbit, land like a plane, spend the next year getting completely rebuilt. Reusable my ass. Should have just stuck with Saturn V or actually built Nova/Ares

Watched the space shuttle my whole life. I talked to an old timer out at 39b, he told me stories of them sitting under the pad, it's a huge air conditioned space full of stuff, generators and whatnot, and doing nothing for days.

Lots of great ideas in this thread!

You guys must have built lots more rockets than Boeing and the N.A.S.A.,.

Maybe you could email them all of your designs and processes?

They sure could use your help.

We escorted it on a barge out of Pearl River MS in the beginning of 2021 so I know it’s been in Florida for over a year. Hell, it’s probably the same rocket I saw getting barged from Michoud up to John C Stennis back in 2019/2020. I mean the thing’s been “built” for 3 dang years now

Lol

This thing will never take off, might wanna change the thread title.

Just add a "not" after definitely

The Artemis project exists to put the first woman of color on the moon. I guarantee you that the program gets cancelled after that box has been checked, assuming NASA doesn’t manage to kill their black female astronaut in the process. Once public interest is lost, Artemis is done. I’d put money on it.

Hell, they couldn’t even build the second batch of Saturn’s due to the Vietnam war and “lack of public interest” since going to the moon became an old trick. And that was in the 1960’s. The national attention span is so damn short now. There’s no way a permanent base gets established on the moon or any of this Mars talk comes to fruition without being done by SpaceX. NASA is putting a girl on the moon and then hanging up their hat

That was the core stage of the rocket and yes, its the same one that was tested at stennis. Although it wasnt completely built when they sent it to stennis.

They should show the leaky connector and the design specs and make it public. I bet some crafty machinist could come up with a better non-leaky design.

In defense of the SLS, it's not exactly the worst idea in the world to have more than one way to the moon.  And I'm pretty sure this is what NASA is thinking, and I believe they've even come out and said it.  They know that Elon will get there.  But if Elon has a manned kaboom, the moon will be shut down during the 2 year or whatever redesign period.  It works the other way as well.

That all being said, NASA has turned into a giant steaming heap of woke dogshit.

'We are not where we wanted to be': NASA's $4.1b Artemis I could be delayed until October; leaking shuttle was sent back for assembly 20 TIMES before attempted launch


After yet another cancelled launch on Saturday, NASA's Artemis 1 rocket will not lift off during this launch period, which ends on Tuesday, likely pushing the date back to October.

Jim Free, associate administrator for NASA's Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate, said 'we will not be launching in this period,' as the agency is 'not where we wanted to be.'

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said the shuttle was sent back to the Vehicle Assembly Building 20 times before the attempted launch.


'The cost of two scrubs is a lot less than a failure,' said Nelson.

As blastoff won't be completed by Tuesday, the 32-story Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion capsule will have to be removed from the launch pad for required technical inspection in the Vehicle Assembly Building.

NASA Launch Director Charlie Blackwell-Thompson issued the 'no-go' order on Saturday morning's failed attempt at T-minus 2:28:53, aborting the Artemis 1 mission for a second time in an embarrassing setback to the billion dollar program.

The launch scrub in Cape Canaveral, Florida came after several attempts to fix a leak in the rocket's liquid hydrogen fueling system failed, setting the delicate fueling operation several hours behind schedule.

Liquid hydrogen leaks have been a persistent issue in the attempts to launch the SLS, including during 'wet dress rehearsals' to practice fully fueling the rocket and counting down to T-minus 10 seconds, but halting the sequence before ignition.

Despite conducting four such rehearsals since April, NASA ended each rehearsal prematurely, and so far has not conducted a full fueling sequence either in a wet rehearsal or real-world launch attempt.

Saturday's planned launch would have marked a major step in humanity's return to the moon, 50 years after the last Apollo lunar mission, with the Artemis program aiming for crewed flights to lunar orbit as soon as 2024.

The ambitious Artemis program, a NASA partnership with SpaceX and the space agencies of Europe, Japan, and Canada, eventually aims to establish a lunar base as a stepping stone to interplanetary space missions.

The previous launch bid on Monday was also halted by engineering snags, in a disappointment to dignitaries including Vice President Kamala Harris who was in attendance to watch the launch.
















The interior of NASA's Orion capsule


More

Looks like a shuttle interior to me.  Makes no sense to make capsule with that configuration.

Attached File

Never heard of Spacex's Falcon Heavy? Not man rated, not intended to be,
but an operational Super Heavy that can reach Pluto.
Its the rocket that will bring up Lunar Gateway parts, PPE and Halo to Lunar orbit.
It's already been doing commercial, DOD and Top Secret Space Force Missions.
Just Sayin.

SpaceX is just as far along as Artemis if not further.  In fact SpaceX has done wet tests, engine tests and stacks. SLS hasn't done a wet test to completion and the engines haven't run since leaving the test stand.

K

B

O

O

M

Needs some WD-40 as well

SLS cannot launch an Orion to lunar orbit with enough fuel for an Earth Return.....so they need to have HLS to do the Moon part....and Gateway will be the transfer point.

They don't want to be hit with questions of did they meaningfully contribute to the mission safety like Blue Origin's crews, they want their wings.

Kharn

Lol

Except that NASA's own internal reports say that's horseshit, and they'll be sending an expedition to the lunar surface mayyybe every 3-4 years or so, with the rest of the Artemis launches going to Gateway construction/supply.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/we-got-a-leaked-look-at-nasas-future-moon-missions-and-likely-delays/

4:35 p.m. | No launch try on Monday, roll back to VAB likely

NASA’s Jim Free, associate administrator for the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate said no attempt will be made to launch Artemis I on Monday, and will have to roll back to the Vehicle Assembly Building because of limits on battery checks of its flight termination system, based on a 25-day limit in place with Space Launch Delta 45. That check would have to be done at the VAB.

“We will not be launching in this launch period,” he said.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/space/artemis/os-artemis-launch-live-updates-20220903-q6buchfcojdkfc3chqzna3zdhi-story.html


Spacex's Booster 7 had an engine swapped out at the pad this week, and Artemis has to roll back for a battery?

Orion can dock with HLS.  Gateway is not needed as a transfer point.  Gateway was removed from critical path in 2020.  Don't know if that is still true, but it doesn't appear that you have to use gateway and it takes rockets and time to build.

It's never going to launch. I should have posted that weeks ago. I tried to have a little faith in the program but here we are. If they do end up launching, it won't make it to orbit or it will explode.

For some reason (read: they want Gateway in the critical path), NASA doesn't want to do an Orion-to-HLS docking for crew xfer.  So Orion will launch on the multi-$Billion rocket, dock at Gateway, and it'll be HLS to the Moon and back.

It's not a matter of "some reason", it's just blatantly because Old Space is trying to maintain cash flow from the .gov tit.

There's literally zero technical reason to build LOP-G. You're actually *adding* to the delta-V requirements to go from Earth to Moon and back, and you're not really gaining a goddamn thing. The only reason we have LOP-G is just because SLS is too fucking underpowered, even in the final iterations, to actually launch a single-flight direct Lunar mission with return capabilities. It just ain't got the ass for it. Which is problematic for Old Space, because designing something new that works better than things did half a century ago is Risky and Costs Money, so it's far cheaper to just pay off some congressscritters to pass a bill mandating NASA procure a pork rocket.

That's less than California spends on free lunch programs for illegals.

A part of me wonders if you're trolling.

But I suspect there's really no other way to address this but to say it bluntly: you have zero fucking clue what you're talking about, have a grudge against Musk, and are utterly willing to drink whatever Kool-Aide NASA's shitty PR people are begrudgingly handing out this week.

LOP-G is, from a space physics standpoint, an utter insane joke. It has zero actual benefit or independent purpose, it was just developed because SLS itself couldn't do a direct mission, and if distributed launch had been allowed to be on the table, Old Space might miss out on the funding.  SLS is purely a means of funneling money to congressional constituents. You literally have to be functionally ignorant of the basic structure of the US government, or else intellectually handicapped, to not understand the how and why of NASA procurement. Congress dictates what rocket they buy, period. Not the NASA administrator, not the President, not the engineers, and not the public. Congress. Which is why SLS had dragged on and on, racking up billions and billions in overruns. Because that's PRECISELY the entire point of the damn program...buying votes with taxpayer dollars. Flying a rocket is entirely ancillary, and arguably even dangerous because it endangers the cash flow if an anomaly occurs in flight. It's welfare for shitty engineering managers.

SpaceX may well fail. But thus far they've utterly upended the last half century of the entire industry, and done it by ruthlessly driving their business by a focus on engineering rather than how to secure the juiciest and easiest government pork. The entire global launch market has been sucker punched and is now lying on the floor with a concussion, because suddenly the Old Space players are forced to actually think about trying to be competitive again for the first time in decades.

Anyone failing to understand these basic physical and financial underpinnings of the entire field has no business trying to resell the marketing bullshit, it's just embarrassing. Please go do some research, from a source that doesn't end in a .gov extension.

The difference is the Money spent, and the Speed, and the Corrupt culture of grift or the lack there of.

Don't delude yourself.  SpaceX is moving much faster than any other program in history.

And they're doing it for a 100th or less of the cost... maybe even a 1000th.

The stated reason SLS and other things contracted like it cost so much is that they supposedly test everything to such a high degree that it should be very nearly Perfect by the time they get to actually launching anything.  After all People are supposed to ride it, so it had better be.

And yet it has massive flaws that could get people killed.  For the same amount of money SpaceX could have already built Hundreds of them and flown them over and over to figure out where the problems are and fix them.  Which would produce a safer product much much faster.

SpaceX is doing well now but they have almost no competition.  They're eating the lunch of Old space companies.  And the One new space that might be competition is taking the old space slow as molasses approach (cough Blue Origin).  I hope more new space companies emerge and provide real competition for SpaceX so they maintain their hunger for improvement.  I think Firefly Space is one such company to watch as they grow.

Anyway... Problems are to be expected in SpaceX's testing campaign.  They have gone from design to construction and launch of test hardware lightning fast as compared to SLS.
Problems are to be expected with SLS... not because it's a new rocket in testing... but because it's a product of wasteful government grift and bribes.

ETA: And despite that NASA is still the most "efficient" government program there is.  After all they actually do produce something eventually.

What a cluster fuck.

That schedule will never happen.

Yep, Will never happen    https://www.usdebtclock.org/#

The full Artemis Total will be somewhere around $93 Billion by 2025.
And with cost plus contracting you know its only going to go up, up up!

Probably need more diversity in their engineering teams.

"For some reason" was meant as sarcasm.  We know, for a fact, that Gateway* is in the critical path because:

1) SLS is too anemic to punt Orion into LLO with enough fuel for TEI.

2) To keep the International Partners in the loop with something to do.


*-it also provides contracts for OldSpace companies, and will be Cost+ ("We need them modules!!!!").  

Aside from its pointlessness (yeah, a Lunar station will eventually be valuable......but we're a LOOOOOONG time out from that point), it's based on ISS design technology (built around FH and SLS launch capacities).....and will be significantly less modern and capable than the metal being bent at Sierra Space and Axiom (and the notional monolithic/semi-monolithic designs that could be lofted by Starship and/or Superheavy).

Look y’all fuckers. I’ll will you a story.

GATEWAY or LOPG:
In the before before times. Before spacex was in the process of taking over NASA had issues with consistent programs or funding.


They were working on SLS/Orion but has no where to go. Presidents shifted priorities every 4-8 years from moon to mars to an asteroid. All very different missions. Budgets were tight. It was legitimately looking like NASA would never get the consistency to get anything done outside LEO ever again.

Enter NASA’s Brain….
*******
“”We are going to have a ship and a BFR…. No money/time for a lander….no money/time for a bigger ship for mars and no mars lander either…. Hmmmmmmmmmm…..I got it!!….space station around the moon!

Other nasa dude: “what that’s fucking worthless and wouldn’t help a lunar lander or mission at all?!”

First nasa dude:
“No listen fucker, build a small station with a small propulsion system around the moon! Tell congress and the people it will help (it won’t help shit) but it gives us a cheapish do-able mission. One we get it out there it will be a funding anchor liability like the ISS.

IF we get astronauts to the moon gateway all of the USA will say ok cool when do they land when watching it on tv. NASA says never because we never got funding for a lander. All of congress goes well fuck we have to have a lander duh doi! Also we can theoretically use gateway as the habitat we throw to mars for the journey if we build it out more”
*********



The idea of gateway is a funding anchor and busy work for beyond Leo human missions. We are fast approaching with spacex a world where hundreds of tons of cargo can be dropped on the moon for relatively nothing. So the gateway doesn’t make much since. It doesn’t help Artemis AT ALL but it gives them an excuse for a mission if no lander is available. It give international partners something to make(modules).

But NASA in 2011-2017 was a bleak place and the gateway was the smartest option they could make. It was a funding anchor they could launch to the moon for shit they knew how to do (modular stations).


Robert zubrin right fully calls it a tollbooth because it literally hurts mission and will be a funding anchor around NASA’s neck in the future. Where NASA will be like fuck gateway let it die in the future but congress will say NO you wanted it no your money has to go to that. So gateway might just suck up our moon base money in the future.

Who here thinks Block 2 SLS has a chance in hell of being funded.....since SLS Block 1 satisfies all of the Pork Goals anyway?

If NASA holds off on the first trans, they might get a second mission...

Kharn

What about all the other genders and preferences?

It may take awhile unless they can get some combo people in the pipeline.

To boldly go where no Nunn-McCurdy Breach has gone before!

The sls in all forms except the block 2 cargo has a lower tonnage to TLI than Saturn. HLS is the solution to this problem, not gateway.

Holy moving parts Batman

Seems like they never got rid of the same moral hazards that killed two shuttle crews

You just divided by zero

World's Largest Solid Rocket Booster Static Fired for SLS and Artemis

Finally, something that could make "sense".

Repeating that SLS can't also do moon landings due to insufficient TLI tonnage does not explain Gateway, it only justifies HLS. I don't know why others kept saying that.

But gateway is easy to build using old space. So NASA continuing with inadequate Artemis meant gateway was the only place it could go. SpaceX appears and can produce HLS making gateway superfluous. NASA doesn't want to cancel gateway because in the future it could have a purpose.

Starship is huge. It's way bigger than needed for HLS. It had a completely different mission. But by launching 4 tankers, it can be sent to the moon with enough fuel to serve as a moon orbit to moon, moon habitat, and back to moon orbit vehicle. In the future, it can be refueled.  A smaller HLS than starship would probably be more optimal. Time to build that later.

The ratuonal way to view and judge SLS, Orion, Gateway, etc is all through this lens:

What is simultaneously the cheapest, least risky*, and easiest way to milk as much money as possible for as long as possible?

*Risk being perceived as anything different than what's already been flown.

SLS needed a destination, since it couldn't go to the Moon. Enter LOP-G. LOP-G was nice simple pork from the same prime contractors as always. Everyone stays happy. It's the exact same story as STS and the ISS: to perpetuate the self-licking ice cream cone, not to boldly go anywhere new at all.

Many years ago I ran across a highly detailed financial analysis somewhere on an old AngelFire or Yahoo page, that laid out a truly impressive analysis of space exploration funding. Essentially, the "smart move", if ones total decision making was bounded by funding levels and not politics, was to stop all spaceflight for a period of a few years, maybe a decade. Dedicate *all* funding to maximizing launch efficiency and bringing down the cost to orbit. Instead of a few tens of millions here and there for prototype launch systems that never get to be trialed, pour all the billions you have into a Manhattan Project of launch tech. *Then* once you have a mature and inexpensive method to orbit, start launching the missions you actually want to do.