4 ms·

There’s a good chance some or all 7 will see people walk on the moon reasonably soon. Artemus 3 is scheduled for September 2026, that can clearly slip but a 2

by Retric 3y ago

There’s a good chance some or all 7 will see people walk on the moon reasonably soon. Artemus 3 is scheduled for September 2026, that can clearly slip but a 2.5 year deadline suggests it is unlikely to slip that far or get canceled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_3 IMO 80% chance it happens within 6 years and 95% chance they actually land on the moon successfully. Without a firm date it’s hard to have a specific plan, but it may be worth actually going and seeing that launch.

ramesh31 3y ago
>Artemus 3 is scheduled for September 2026, that can clearly slip but a 2.5 year deadline suggests it is unlikely to slip that far or get canceled. Artemis has failed to meet a single deadline since its inception, and has cost more than all public and private investment into SpaceX for the last 20 years combined. We are paying more for a single (disposable) SLS engine than the cost of an entire Falcon 9 launch. The whole thing is a farce.
- glimshe 3y ago
  Cost overruns are a staple of government-led programs. Also, the government has very deep pockets (and plenty of credit) and should be able to deal with the costs as long as it remains a priority in our image competition with China.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Cost and schedule overruns are a staple of developing new technology and complex systems. It's very difficult to estimate time and budget for those things.
    - nordsieck 3y ago
      >Cost and schedule overruns are a staple of developing new technology and complex systems. It's very difficult to estimate time and budget for those things. I'd be more sympathetic if SLS had more new technology. They're using actual engines that previously flew on Shuttles. And sure - there's a few changes - the SRBs have 5 segments, there's new insulation, etc. But nothing that should have caused the expense and delay that we're seeing. Heck - the cost overruns and delays with the mobile launch platforms ML-1 and ML-2 are absurd and there's absolutely nothing new there - they're just steel towers with piping.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- stevenjgarner 3y ago
  My initial response is of course to agree with you. But then I reflect on how impossible it would have been for SpaceX to succeed without the support of NASA (and other agencies). NASA is a political organization consisting of its headquarters in Washington, D.C. together with 10 field centers [1]. While this unnecessary scattering and distribution of effort is itself a reflection of pork barrel spending, it has been what has been necessary to galvanize the support of constituent American representatives to approve the relatively meager NASA budget. Similarly the Artemis program is the very compromise those ever-changing representatives and administrations can agree on, together with its cost plus method of budgeting, to keep jobs in districts and re-election coffers full. I remind myself I need to embrace that rather than be cynical about it. Democracy is hard. I'm at a point now where I realize how essential the Artemis program is to the ongoing support for SpaceX by NASA. The program will change a LOT more based on both every success SpaceX has with Starship and any further ongoing failure of Boeing (please no!). IMO I feel we need to wish NASA, SpaceX (and Blue Origin) and yes even Boeing the very best or something even better. I am awed at the political deftness with which NASA is transitioning away from cost plus and has engaged the private sector. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/hq/nasa-center-assignments-by-state/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/hq/nasa-center-a...
Dalewyn 3y ago
Artemis has a higher risk of being cancelled or fundamentally restructured than delays.
mhaberl 3y ago
>> I'm not sure how likely it is that any of them will see humans walk the Moon again. > There’s a good chance some or all 7 will see people walk on the moon Chance that a 88 year old male will live 6 more years is about 27% according to the tables [1] So, a chance that at least one of those 7 lives 6 more years is about 89% (a bit less because some are older than 88), but that is the ballpark figure I would call that more than a good chance :) [1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
- vijayr02 3y ago
  Now adjust for the fact that these are all ex astronauts, so will probably be fitter than the average 88 year old? Is there data for life expectancy given astronaut?
  - WXLCKNO 3y ago
    Top comment says there's 7 astronauts still alive the youngest being 88? That's all already way beyond the norm I think.
    - keybored 3y ago
      Literal survivorship bias. There were 24 originally and this was more than 50 years ago.
      - inglor_cz 3y ago
        Astronauts in the 1960s were required to be perfectly healthy before their mission, not even minor anomalies in bloodwork etc. were tolerated. No surprise that a third of the moonwalkers is still alive at approximately 90. Nowadays the tolerance is somewhat bigger.
        keybored 3y ago
        Fine point which has nothing to do with my comment.
Eliezer 3y ago
Prediction markets seem to think 2028. https://manifold.markets/plsdelete/when-will-humans-set-foot-on-the-mo?r=RWxpZXplcll1ZGtvd3NreQ https://manifold.markets/plsdelete/when-will-humans-set-foot...
dagoodnews 3y ago
> There’s a good chance some or all 7 will see people walk on the moon reasonably soon. Yes. And SpaceX was supposed to fly the japanese entrepreneur around the moon in 2023. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-moon-announcement-elon-musk-reveals-bfr-moon-mission-passenger-yusaku-maezawa-2018-09-18/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-moon-announcement-elon-m... Considering that just a fly-by to the moon is being delayed, I'd imagine that actually landing men on the moon is going to be delayed as well.
bigbillheck 3y ago
PRC's planning on 2030: https://spacenews.com/china-sets-sights-on-crewed-lunar-landing-before-2030/ https://spacenews.com/china-sets-sights-on-crewed-lunar-land...

by Retric 3y ago

ramesh31 3y ago

>Artemus 3 is scheduled for September 2026, that can clearly slip but a 2.5 year deadline suggests it is unlikely to slip that far or get canceled. Artemis has failed to meet a single deadline since its inception, and has cost more than all public and private investment into SpaceX for the last 20 years combined. We are paying more for a single (disposable) SLS engine than the cost of an entire Falcon 9 launch. The whole thing is a farce.

glimshe 3y ago
Cost overruns are a staple of government-led programs. Also, the government has very deep pockets (and plenty of credit) and should be able to deal with the costs as long as it remains a priority in our image competition with China.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Cost and schedule overruns are a staple of developing new technology and complex systems. It's very difficult to estimate time and budget for those things.
  - nordsieck 3y ago
    >Cost and schedule overruns are a staple of developing new technology and complex systems. It's very difficult to estimate time and budget for those things. I'd be more sympathetic if SLS had more new technology. They're using actual engines that previously flew on Shuttles. And sure - there's a few changes - the SRBs have 5 segments, there's new insulation, etc. But nothing that should have caused the expense and delay that we're seeing. Heck - the cost overruns and delays with the mobile launch platforms ML-1 and ML-2 are absurd and there's absolutely nothing new there - they're just steel towers with piping.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
stevenjgarner 3y ago
My initial response is of course to agree with you. But then I reflect on how impossible it would have been for SpaceX to succeed without the support of NASA (and other agencies). NASA is a political organization consisting of its headquarters in Washington, D.C. together with 10 field centers [1]. While this unnecessary scattering and distribution of effort is itself a reflection of pork barrel spending, it has been what has been necessary to galvanize the support of constituent American representatives to approve the relatively meager NASA budget. Similarly the Artemis program is the very compromise those ever-changing representatives and administrations can agree on, together with its cost plus method of budgeting, to keep jobs in districts and re-election coffers full. I remind myself I need to embrace that rather than be cynical about it. Democracy is hard. I'm at a point now where I realize how essential the Artemis program is to the ongoing support for SpaceX by NASA. The program will change a LOT more based on both every success SpaceX has with Starship and any further ongoing failure of Boeing (please no!). IMO I feel we need to wish NASA, SpaceX (and Blue Origin) and yes even Boeing the very best or something even better. I am awed at the political deftness with which NASA is transitioning away from cost plus and has engaged the private sector. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/hq/nasa-center-assignments-by-state/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/hq/nasa-center-a...

Dalewyn 3y ago

Artemis has a higher risk of being cancelled or fundamentally restructured than delays.

mhaberl 3y ago

>> I'm not sure how likely it is that any of them will see humans walk the Moon again. > There’s a good chance some or all 7 will see people walk on the moon Chance that a 88 year old male will live 6 more years is about 27% according to the tables [1] So, a chance that at least one of those 7 lives 6 more years is about 89% (a bit less because some are older than 88), but that is the ballpark figure I would call that more than a good chance :) [1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

vijayr02 3y ago
Now adjust for the fact that these are all ex astronauts, so will probably be fitter than the average 88 year old? Is there data for life expectancy given astronaut?
- WXLCKNO 3y ago
  Top comment says there's 7 astronauts still alive the youngest being 88? That's all already way beyond the norm I think.
  - keybored 3y ago
    Literal survivorship bias. There were 24 originally and this was more than 50 years ago.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      Astronauts in the 1960s were required to be perfectly healthy before their mission, not even minor anomalies in bloodwork etc. were tolerated. No surprise that a third of the moonwalkers is still alive at approximately 90. Nowadays the tolerance is somewhat bigger.
      - keybored 3y ago
        Fine point which has nothing to do with my comment.

Eliezer 3y ago

Prediction markets seem to think 2028. https://manifold.markets/plsdelete/when-will-humans-set-foot-on-the-mo?r=RWxpZXplcll1ZGtvd3NreQ https://manifold.markets/plsdelete/when-will-humans-set-foot...

dagoodnews 3y ago

> There’s a good chance some or all 7 will see people walk on the moon reasonably soon. Yes. And SpaceX was supposed to fly the japanese entrepreneur around the moon in 2023. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-moon-announcement-elon-musk-reveals-bfr-moon-mission-passenger-yusaku-maezawa-2018-09-18/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-moon-announcement-elon-m... Considering that just a fly-by to the moon is being delayed, I'd imagine that actually landing men on the moon is going to be delayed as well.

bigbillheck 3y ago

PRC's planning on 2030: https://spacenews.com/china-sets-sights-on-crewed-lunar-landing-before-2030/ https://spacenews.com/china-sets-sights-on-crewed-lunar-land...