Space Travel & Exploration

[cubby]

What's the over/under on it actually launching in the month of August?

I sincerely hope it goes off without a hitch on the 29, it will be amazing to get a rocket around the moon and back.

[plz delete account]

If it launches on the 29th or 2nd, I'll be able to stream it. Would you guys be interested?

[cubby]

If it launches on the 29th or 2nd, I'll be able to stream it. Would you guys be interested?

I appreciate the offer, but I probably wouldn't watch the launch live. Nothing about the actual launch is a big deal (unlike with SpaceX, for example). The big deal is that it's actually happening, and that it goes off without a hitch.

I still have the twin landings from SpaceX as a continuous GIF on my computer. Forking amazing.

[plz delete account]

I appreciate the offer, but I probably wouldn't watch the launch live. Nothing about the actual launch is a big deal (unlike with SpaceX, for example). The big deal is that it's actually happening, and that it goes off without a hitch.

I still have the twin landings from SpaceX as a continuous GIF on my computer. Forking amazing.

I've never seen someone so callously dismiss a fucking moon rocket like that, but okay, good for you and your ham fist I guess

[cubby]

I've never seen someone so callously dismiss a fucking moon rocket like that, but okay, good for you and your ham fist I guess

What the holy fuck are you even going on about? I really wish you wouldn't shoot from the hip and think before you post. Nothing I said was any way shape or form "callously dismissing" anything. The overall mission is very significant, the actual rocket taking off is not a huge deal, enough to actually stream it.

It's really hard to believe your in the industry of taking in information and then writing about it. Your posts rarely reflect that ability.

[plz delete account]

What the holy fuck are you even going on about? I really wish you wouldn't shoot from the hip and think before you post. Nothing I said was any way shape or form "callously dismissing" anything. The overall mission is very significant, the actual rocket taking off is not a huge deal, enough to actually stream it.

Only the largest, most powerful operational moon rocket launch to date, and if it wasn't for this program, Starship wouldn't have any contracts yet.


Poke me when you remember that.

[cubby]

Only the largest, most powerful operational moon rocket launch to date,

Sure, and if it gets off the ground, and finally does what it promises, I'll be there cheering. But the launch itself isn't the big deal, it's what it represents if it's successful.

and if it wasn't for this program, Starship wouldn't have any contracts yet.

Patently false.

Poke me when you remember that.

Poke us when you're done thinking you know more about what we meant in our posts than we do. You are just fucking adorable.

[Osmeric]

Only the largest, most powerful operational moon rocket launch to date, and if it wasn't for this program, Starship wouldn't have any contracts yet.

SLS is an abomination. It's pointless because of its expense. We and the space program would all be better off if it explodes on the launch pad and the project is cancelled.

[Flarelaine]

Please cease the personal back and forth.

[cubby]

SLS is an abomination. It's pointless because of its expense. We and the space program would all be better off if it explodes on the launch pad and the project is cancelled.

But that's not right. At the moment, as @Lilithvia and @PACOX have pointed out, SLS is our only real shot at getting back ONto the moon, with this Aug 29 launch being a proof of concept (sort of) in which it will orbit the moon once. SpaceX could do it, maybe, down the road, if their Starship series works, and then gets man rated, and then gets 16+ launches worth of fuel up to LEO, and then....

If I understand it correctly, getting to the moon is going to be a combination of SLS and SpaceX and a couple other private launch facilities, and obviously NASA.

This all of course is predicated on new space suits being designed/tested/produced.

[PACOX]

But that's not right. At the moment, as @Lilithvia and @PACOX have pointed out, SLS is our only real shot at getting back ONto the moon, with this Aug 29 launch being a proof of concept (sort of) in which it will orbit the moon once. SpaceX could do it, maybe, down the road, if their Starship series works, and then gets man rated, and then gets 16+ launches worth of fuel up to LEO, and then....

If I understand it correctly, getting to the moon is going to be a combination of SLS and SpaceX and a couple other private launch facilities, and obviously NASA.

This all of course is predicated on new space suits being designed/tested/produced.

Yeah this is the more or less the roadmap.

Artemis 1 - SLS maidan flight. Will take its capsule around the moon.

Artemis 2 - Manned mission. Will take astronauts around the moon but not land.

Artemis 3 - Suits and SpaceX should be ready to go. Actual moon landing.

I guess SpaceX is still waiting on approval to do orbital tests of Starship? I'm not sure, not up to date on that project.

[plz delete account]

But that's not right. At the moment, as @Lilithvia and @PACOX have pointed out, SLS is our only real shot at getting back ONto the moon, with this Aug 29 launch being a proof of concept (sort of) in which it will orbit the moon once. SpaceX could do it, maybe, down the road, if their Starship series works, and then gets man rated, and then gets 16+ launches worth of fuel up to LEO, and then....

If I understand it correctly, getting to the moon is going to be a combination of SLS and SpaceX and a couple other private launch facilities, and obviously NASA.

This all of course is predicated on new space suits being designed/tested/produced.

Yes. Right now, SLS is the only human rated moon rocket available. And Artemis, at least for the moon based section of the program, is reliant on contractors such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada, etc by design.

Also, it's not once. It's a 28 day mission in a 69 mile circularized orbit around the moon.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah this is the more or less the roadmap.

Artemis 1 - SLS maidan flight. Will take its capsule around the moon.

Artemis 2 - Manned mission. Will take astronauts around the moon but not land.

Artemis 3 - Suits and SpaceX should be ready to go. Actual moon landing.

I guess SpaceX is still waiting on approval to do orbital tests of Starship? I'm not sure, not up to date on that project.

I believe SpaceX is currently retrofitting Booster 7 and building Booster 8.

- - - Updated - - -
@cubby I miss the days when you could refer to Starhopper as a water tower and joke "It's all fun and games until the water tower starts flying."

[Osmeric]

But that's not right. At the moment, as @Lilithvia and @PACOX have pointed out, SLS is our only real shot at getting back ONto the moon, with this Aug 29 launch being a proof of concept (sort of) in which it will orbit the moon once. SpaceX could do it, maybe, down the road, if their Starship series works, and then gets man rated, and then gets 16+ launches worth of fuel up to LEO, and then....

If I understand it correctly, getting to the moon is going to be a combination of SLS and SpaceX and a couple other private launch facilities, and obviously NASA.

This all of course is predicated on new space suits being designed/tested/produced.

Just "getting back on the moon" is, by itself, worthless. What would give getting back on the moon value would be the valuable things that being on the moon would enable. But the problem with SLS is that it's so ludicrously expensive that any moon program that depends on it will be just symbolic. It will have people on the moon, at least a few of them, maybe, but they won't be doing anything to make it worth having them there.

What's been holding back space isn't politicians or lack of will. It's cost > benefit. Just ignoring cost and confusing symbolism with real achievement won't change that.

[plz delete account]

Just "getting back on the moon" is, by itself, worthless. What would give getting back on the moon value would be the valuable things that being on the moon would enable. But the problem with SLS is that it's so ludicrously expensive that any moon program that depends on it will be just symbolic. It will have people on the moon, at least a few of them, maybe, but they won't be doing anything to make it worth having them there.

What's been holding back space isn't politicians or lack of will. It's cost > benefit. Just ignoring cost and confusing symbolism with real achievement won't change that.

Going to the moon without a low lunar orbit economy in place is absolutely asinine.

[PACOX]

Just "getting back on the moon" is, by itself, worthless. What would give getting back on the moon value would be the valuable things that being on the moon would enable. But the problem with SLS is that it's so ludicrously expensive that any moon program that depends on it will be just symbolic. It will have people on the moon, at least a few of them, maybe, but they won't be doing anything to make it worth having them there.

What's been holding back space isn't politicians or lack of will. It's cost > benefit. Just ignoring cost and confusing symbolism with real achievement won't change that.

The space shuttles were insanely expensive too but maybe we should have held off nearly 30 years of spaceflight until Falcon 9s and Heavy magically popped up without decades of that make them the marvels they.

You bring up this argument every time SLS is brought up. SLS is just one part of Artemis. Artemis is how we 'normalize' working beyond LEO and learn how to get to near-Earth asteroids/Mars. This phasr of Artemis is as necessary as Gemini was to Apollo as Apollo was to the shuttles, as the shuttles were to the ISS and how all of those facilitated commercial satellites.


Artemis is necessary if we ever want to progress human spaceflight past LEO. SLS is the trailmaker do more efficient vehicles still in development ie transport variant of Starship are built, tested, certified, and integrated into the program.


Is SLS cost efficient?Nope. Is it a dumb design? Yup. But it is ome that works and will serve its purpose for better mire permanent solutions in the very near future. NASA has the hardware so thry are going to us it until Starship, the Lunar Gateway, and anything else is done.

[Osmeric]

The space shuttles were insanely expensive too but maybe we should have held off nearly 30 years of spaceflight until Falcon 9s and Heavy magically popped up without decades of that make them the marvels they.

The Space Shuttle was also a travesty. We'd have been far better off just evolving the expendable boosters we had. The Saturn 1B was not all that different from a Falcon 9, and could very well have evolved over time into a launcher comparable to the F9. Even when it started, the Saturn 1B's cost per kg to low earth orbit was less than what the Shuttle eventually delivered (dividing payload of the Shuttle over its lifespan into the total program cost.)

You bring up this argument every time SLS is brought up. SLS is just one part of Artemis. Artemis is how we 'normalize' working beyond LEO and learn how to get to near-Earth asteroids/Mars. This phasr of Artemis is as necessary as Gemini was to Apollo as Apollo was to the shuttles, as the shuttles were to the ISS and how all of those facilitated commercial satellites.

I bring the argument up because it's a winning argument. Why change it?

Artemis, because it depends on SLS, is also worthless. Indeed, Artemis even without SLS would make little sense. Artemis was designed not to achieve something of value, but to give SLS something to do. It's an entirely corrupt way to design a space program.

Artemis is necessary if we ever want to progress human spaceflight past LEO.

Wrong. A real and practical program moving beyond LEO would look very different. For example, it would feature on-orbit propellant storage and transfer. But that subject is taboo with NASA because with propellant transfer there is little need for very large launchers, like SLS.

Is SLS cost efficient?Nope. Is it a dumb design? Yup. But it is ome that works and will serve its purpose for better mire permanent solutions in the very near future. NASA has the hardware so thry are going to us it until Starship, the Lunar Gateway, and anything else is done.

This is a dumb and broken justification for SLS. Unless you are feeding at this particular gravy train, "no program now" > "a SLS program".

[plz delete account]

It's not NASA's job to make money. That is the job of the contractors. However, it is NASA's job, as directed by the Space Policy Council to develop a low lunar economy, something that does not start out as profitable until well established. If left up to private space industry, this sort of thing would not be happening at all, because it's not cost efficient in the near term.

[cubby]

The Space Shuttle was also a travesty. We'd have been far better off just evolving the expendable boosters we had. The Saturn 1B was not all that different from a Falcon 9, and could very well have evolved over time into a launcher comparable to the F9. Even when it started, the Saturn 1B's cost per kg to low earth orbit was less than what the Shuttle eventually delivered (dividing payload of the Shuttle over its lifespan into the total program cost.)

Even if we'd skipped the Shuttle and just improved our boosters, it's highly doubtful NASA would have been able to evolve them to the self landing we have now courtesy of SpaceX. NASA certainly had the designs (SpaceX used them), and the knowledge, and the expertise - what they lacked was the gravitas. NASA is slow and plodding with hardly any risk. It took a privateer to make that piece work.

I bring the argument up because it's a winning argument. Why change it?

You bring it up because you think it's a winning argument - but it never has been, not once. NASA never went into space to save money or make a profit. It was never the point. Doing it was the point - and only a government program could have done it. Right now we need to get back to the moon, so we can open up space, and expand. Lots of reasons to do so, none of which include profit - at least not with out government subsidies.

Artemis, because it depends on SLS, is also worthless. Indeed, Artemis even without SLS would make little sense. Artemis was designed not to achieve something of value, but to give SLS something to do. It's an entirely corrupt way to design a space program.

It's literally not worthless. So fundamentally, your point is wrong. Artemis gets us to the moon, with an orbital station around the moon, and finally a moon base. Then a full on moon colony. That is worth a LOT.

Wrong. A real and practical program moving beyond LEO would look very different. For example, it would feature on-orbit propellant storage and transfer. But that subject is taboo with NASA because with propellant transfer there is little need for very large launchers, like SLS.

SpaceX to launch world’s first geostationary propellant depot around the Moon. Whoops.

This is a dumb and broken justification for SLS. Unless you are feeding at this particular gravy train, "no program now" > "a SLS program".

Here is where you really lose the whole ballgame. Because what you cannot seem to grasp is practical is not mutually exclusive to useful. Artemis/SLS isn't practical, in any way. But it is useful - because it gets us to the moon.

[plz delete account]

so what's more practical, @Osmeric , an untested rocket booster not even ready to go on a suborbital launch, or a fully loaded and ready to launch moon rocket literally at the pad and ready to go to the moon first try

[Osmeric]

so what's more practical, @Osmeric , an untested rocket booster not even ready to go on a suborbital launch, or a fully loaded and ready to launch moon rocket literally at the pad and ready to go to the moon first try

You seem to not understand that a lunar program based on Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy would beat the pants off one based on SLS. Starship would be even better than that, but it's not necessary to make SLS irrelevant.