4 ms·

>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

>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...

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...