5 ms·

Does anyone get the point with Artemis? Because I really don‘t. To my untrained eye the current outlook on the program looks like that rocket is right now only

Does anyone get the point with Artemis? Because I really don‘t. To my untrained eye the current outlook on the program looks like that rocket is right now only supposed to make two roundtrips along the moon — and then in that third „Starship HLS“ mission Artemis’ only job is to take up the astronauts to orbit: while Starship (notably designed to be human rated) will be doing all the heavy lifting of the mission. In this context it all looks like a total sham, it would literally be cheaper and easier to send them up in another reusable Starship. What other purpose does Artemis have except building the most expensive trip to orbit existing so NASA can say „hey, we did something about this moon mission too!“?

ceejayoz 4y ago
> Does anyone get the point with Artemis? Making Senators happy.
- imglorp 4y ago
  Right, the Senate Launch System maximizes transfer of cash from taxpayers to defense contractors. There is absolutely no need to fly any hardware in the process.
theteapot 4y ago
> Does anyone get the point with Artemis? Because I really don‘t. They want to go to the moon.
- endymi0n 4y ago
  That‘s exactly what I mean. In their newest plan, they don’t. Someone else does.
  - theteapot 4y ago
    Who? They're all on the same team, team USA! Or are you implying the glacial pace will inevitably mean China gets there first?
    - endymi0n 4y ago
      So even if it was this easy and logical, the only logical consequence would be scrapping SLS right now. Artemis 3 isn‘t just depending on one, but two super heavy launchers that haven‘t even left the ground yet. And if you put Starship in the critical path, why would you spend billions to introduce another bottleneck that‘s literally just duplicating Starship‘s ground to orbit capability? If NASA agenda really only was getting the USA to the moon, the only rational choice would be doubling down on Starship all the way.
      - mannerheim 4y ago
        Starship hadn't been conceived in 2011, but the SLS has been obsolete since 2018 with the Falcon Heavy.
- huhtenberg 4y ago
  They want to keep lots of people employed.
jackmott 4y ago
engineer_22 4y ago
When they started the project (2011) Starship wasn't even a twinkle in Elon's eye (BFR around 2016). Starship started looking like a real product in 2020. In hindsight, you're right, SLS looks silly, but not many people were betting on SpaceX developing a super heavy launch system in 6 years like they've (apparently) done. They've invested a lot of money in SLS and there's probably still lessons to learn there. If Starship is successful SLS will probably not be deployed very frequently.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  '"Let's be very honest again," Bolden said in a 2014 interview. "We don't have a commercially available heavy lift vehicle. Falcon 9 Heavy may someday come about. It's on the drawing board right now. SLS is real."'
tiborsaas 4y ago
They have the goal to build a moon base and establish human presence there. This could lead to better research and we could see the start of the industrialization of the moon. This looks like something governments like to do and do it in government style :) Their site is a good start: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/ https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/ And I've just skimmed this, but looks like a decent comparison of SLS vs Starship: https://everydayastronaut.com/sls-vs-starship/ https://everydayastronaut.com/sls-vs-starship/
GolfPopper 4y ago
To put a pretty positive spin on it: to use extant launch hardware to carry out some key heavy lift missions while developing future, replacement heavy lift launchers. To put an uncharitable spin on it: to full federal space spending into the same places where its been since the 70s, to not rock the boat. I think one of the reason some people are so cynical about it is that it appears to have succeeded at the second goal while being ineffective at the first.

ceejayoz 4y ago

> Does anyone get the point with Artemis? Making Senators happy.

imglorp 4y ago
Right, the Senate Launch System maximizes transfer of cash from taxpayers to defense contractors. There is absolutely no need to fly any hardware in the process.

theteapot 4y ago

> Does anyone get the point with Artemis? Because I really don‘t. They want to go to the moon.

endymi0n 4y ago
That‘s exactly what I mean. In their newest plan, they don’t. Someone else does.
- theteapot 4y ago
  Who? They're all on the same team, team USA! Or are you implying the glacial pace will inevitably mean China gets there first?
  - endymi0n 4y ago
    So even if it was this easy and logical, the only logical consequence would be scrapping SLS right now. Artemis 3 isn‘t just depending on one, but two super heavy launchers that haven‘t even left the ground yet. And if you put Starship in the critical path, why would you spend billions to introduce another bottleneck that‘s literally just duplicating Starship‘s ground to orbit capability? If NASA agenda really only was getting the USA to the moon, the only rational choice would be doubling down on Starship all the way.
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      Starship hadn't been conceived in 2011, but the SLS has been obsolete since 2018 with the Falcon Heavy.
huhtenberg 4y ago
They want to keep lots of people employed.

jackmott 4y ago

engineer_22 4y ago

When they started the project (2011) Starship wasn't even a twinkle in Elon's eye (BFR around 2016). Starship started looking like a real product in 2020. In hindsight, you're right, SLS looks silly, but not many people were betting on SpaceX developing a super heavy launch system in 6 years like they've (apparently) done. They've invested a lot of money in SLS and there's probably still lessons to learn there. If Starship is successful SLS will probably not be deployed very frequently.

mannerheim 4y ago
'"Let's be very honest again," Bolden said in a 2014 interview. "We don't have a commercially available heavy lift vehicle. Falcon 9 Heavy may someday come about. It's on the drawing board right now. SLS is real."'

tiborsaas 4y ago

They have the goal to build a moon base and establish human presence there. This could lead to better research and we could see the start of the industrialization of the moon. This looks like something governments like to do and do it in government style :) Their site is a good start: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/ https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/ And I've just skimmed this, but looks like a decent comparison of SLS vs Starship: https://everydayastronaut.com/sls-vs-starship/ https://everydayastronaut.com/sls-vs-starship/

GolfPopper 4y ago

To put a pretty positive spin on it: to use extant launch hardware to carry out some key heavy lift missions while developing future, replacement heavy lift launchers. To put an uncharitable spin on it: to full federal space spending into the same places where its been since the 70s, to not rock the boat. I think one of the reason some people are so cynical about it is that it appears to have succeeded at the second goal while being ineffective at the first.