3 ms·

There is no technological innovation in the Artemis stack. Three of the main engines are refurbished Shuttle engines. The fourth is a clone that cost more tha

There is no technological innovation in the Artemis stack. Three of the main engines are refurbished Shuttle engines. The fourth is a clone that cost more than the entire SpaceX Starship stack. The boosters are derived from the Shuttle SRBs. It's a late-60s technology rocket stack with a 2000s-era flight computer. It's such a travesty.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> is no technological innovation in the Artemis stack Scaling is still engineering. And the environmental control system, laser-optical communication systems and block-construction heat shields are new. For Artemis III, in-obit propellant transfer will be new and transformational.
- NetMageSCW 6mo ago
  The block construction heat shield was new on Artemis I. Now we just know that it is an unfixed problem that will be done differently on future missions. And Artemis III has nothing to do with in-orbit propellant transfer, that will be SpaceX and Blue Origin testing independently of Artemis III.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > block construction heat shield was new on Artemis I. Now we just know that it is an unfixed problem Unfixed problems on a new technology mean it’s still new. > Artemis III has nothing to do with in-orbit propellant transfer I may have fucked this up—isn’t the depot supposed to be up for III? Or is that punted to IV?
- Teever 6mo ago
  All of this stuff is really great but it's not worth the cost that was spent on it. The thing you have to keep asking yourself is "what could 100 billion dollars of non-pork barrel spending have bought instead of what we ended up with?"
  - noosphr 6mo ago
    A month of war in the middle east.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > All of this stuff is really great but it's not worth the cost that was spent on it It’s building towards a system. If we get Starship and in-orbit propellant depots and a lunar nuclear reactor and then kill the programme, it will probably be judged by history as a success. > what could 100 billion dollars of non-pork barrel spending have bought instead of what we ended up with? Rien. This is the system we have, and it’s unclear such a program could have survived sans pork.
    - Teever 6mo ago
      It may be building towards a system. Or it could all be cancelled in 3-4 weeks after these four explorers burn up on reentry. And then all these hopes and dreams that you have will be gone, like that $100 billion dollars just up in smoke. I can tell that you're as passionate about space exploration and colonization as I am, but this isn't the way my friend. This program is coming at the cost of the Aldrin Cyclers and Von Braun Wheels that you and I know could and should have existed decades ago and while you may think that those things will come from this program I think you should consider the fact that root cause of this program's dysfunction is what is denying us this reality of humanity spreading across the stars.
      - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > It may be building towards a system It may build. It is building. > it could all be cancelled in 3-4 weeks after these four explorers burn up We’d have wasted money. But we’d still be ahead. Artemis has funded a lot of development. > can tell that you're as passionate about space exploration and colonization as I am, but this isn't the way my friend In a perfect world? No. Is it a legitimate way? Absolutely. We’re still moving forward. > This program is coming at the cost of the Aldrin Cyclers and Von Braun Wheels Nobody is funding these. We’re beating the Chinese to land. That clicks. That sells. Space-based infrastructure is hallucinated competition. > that root cause of this program's dysfunction is what is denying us this reality The alternative is we spend NASA’s Artemis budget on Medicaid billing at autism centers in Indiana. I’d prefer the vision you painted. But I won’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. This program moves us forward and funds roads to alternatives. Starship, for example.
- kevin_thibedeau 6mo ago
  It isn't moving forward. It's an ill-conceived Apollo 1.5 with the MIC calling all the shots and a lander that is MIA. China is doing Apollo 2.0 which is fine considering this is their first attempt. The US needs a modular launch system with orbital booster tugs that can be mixed in various combinations for different mission profiles. One big booster with all of the risk stacked onto billion dollar launches is not the future we should be working toward.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > US needs a modular launch system with orbital booster tugs that can be mixed in various combinations for different mission profiles This is what the propellant depot is building towards.
- dylan604 6mo ago
  > in-obit propellant transfer I'm hoping they can do it in-orbit. We've had enough NASA obits
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    Hehe. Obits to be avoided in obisular orbits.
GaryBluto 6mo ago
It's not about the Orion unit specifically but the fact that this is happening in the first place. This is simply a precursor to future missions and the construction of the Artemis Base Camp.
MattGrommes 6mo ago
It's silly to say there's no innovation here. These aren't legos that you just snap together. I'm sure there are innovations up and down the whole thing, using the old technology they have easily available to them. No, it's not the most modern Rocket Lab or SpaceX project but they have immense drag on their process that those companies don't have and they still got the dang thing up and headed toward the moon.
- s5300 6mo ago
  [dead]
- KennyBlanken 6mo ago
  That old technology wasn't remotely "easy" and the reason the top minds aren't going to NASA is because nobody wants to work on tech selected for maximum pork.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
general_reveal 6mo ago
So, are you suggesting we should not misunderstand “just business” as “glorious human achievement”?
NetMageSCW 6mo ago
I believe the fourth is actually built from left over STS engine parts and they haven’t gotten to the clones yet.
feyman_r 6mo ago
Its true that innovation isn't clearly shown in this mission; we also haven't flown humans out that far in more than 50 years either and while we have memories of it, our ability to even execute something like this must be built again. I'd rather see us doing this and 'pick up from where we were last time', than giving up on it or just using a stack that's not currently set to do this. What Artemis is doing is not impeding innovation: its building our muscle back to work on such things; the discipline, rigor, scale, and attitude needed to execute such missions is unimaginable and orthogonal to the technical innovation and stack used. I also believe that its completely fine to use a 2000s-era flight computer, if that suffices for this purpose. Somehow, for such critical missions, my mental model is to use at least 10 year old technology that has stood the test of time, before going into space. If there's a need for the latest technology - then yes, it should be leveraged.
- m4rtink 6mo ago
  Not impending innovation is IMHO debatable - Artemis has definitely potential to motivate a lot of lay population & young people to go do space stuff and tech in general. On the other hand SLS and Orion have gobbled insane amount of money that could have been invested to other science missions or even more efficient human space flight.
- KennyBlanken 6mo ago
  > our ability to even execute something like this must be built again Why? Because "dreams"? "Reach for the stars"? You know what I remember from the shuttle launches as a kid? I remember my school not being able to afford textbooks but apparently we had enough to spend billions on putting people in space for no reason.
  - nirav72 6mo ago
    Do you honestly believe that by repurposing money from missions like these would suddenly free up money for text books? That’s not how it works. Especially not in 2026.
    - 6mo ago
m4rtink 6mo ago
IIRC there are some hydrogen powered APUs on the SLS core stage, replacing the Hydrazine powered ones used on Shuttle (both on orbiter & SRBs). The solar panel control on the Orion also seems coo and useful, not to mention having cameras on the arrays for self-inspections. I am sure there are more subtle innovations like this that would hopefully be useful on more sensible rockets and space vehicles in the future. :)
titzer 6mo ago
It's in orbit. I for one love the fact they recycled some well-designed engines and made this mission a success (so far).
longislandguido 6mo ago
We'll be sure to give you a ring when the Moon base needs food delivery apps in the year 2347.
Keyframe 6mo ago
This read like one of those "I could've done this in a weekend" replies to app launches.
dylan604 6mo ago
While that might be true, it is on course to the moon now. Starship hasn't really done anything close. So while cheaper might be on the way, it doesn't exist now. When Starship can do now, we can talk about if the Shuttle Leftover System is ready to be retired
- WaterRun 6mo ago
  Starship is not designed for high-orbit deep-space missions; it is more like a cargo truck for low Earth orbit.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - dylan604 6mo ago
    Fine, but you're dodging the actual point here I think
  - mulmen 6mo ago
    So you agree that SLS provides useful functionality and that Musk lied about Starship being a Mars bus.
  - NetMageSCW 6mo ago
    That’s incorrect — it is both. That’s why orbital refueling is so important to Starship’s future.
KennyBlanken 6mo ago
The Artemis was a pork barrel project to feed federal tax money to all the states that had huge space shuttle contracts. That and NASA is pathologically terrified of anything resembling innovation.
neya 6mo ago
Yeah, fuck the engineers who worked full time and ran many simulations tirelessly and worked out the best stack for this mission, right? Most of the combustion engines in your car are still from designs late 60s - 80s (Eg. Renault). Does that mean it's a travesty too? Let me guess, a bunch of dudes sitting in SF in a garage could have made a better rocket that runs on ReactJS, right? Because NASA BAD. Give me a break.
hsuduebc2 6mo ago
Well what are they suppose to do other than continue where they left it? As far I understand purpose of Artemis mission it is to build a pernamently occupied base on the moon not to build better and better rockets now. I mean, it's not the best solution but it is proven to work and they perceive it as enough for now. I think it's very similar to some critical systems still running code written in cobol sixty years ago.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago

> is no technological innovation in the Artemis stack Scaling is still engineering. And the environmental control system, laser-optical communication systems and block-construction heat shields are new. For Artemis III, in-obit propellant transfer will be new and transformational.

NetMageSCW 6mo ago
The block construction heat shield was new on Artemis I. Now we just know that it is an unfixed problem that will be done differently on future missions. And Artemis III has nothing to do with in-orbit propellant transfer, that will be SpaceX and Blue Origin testing independently of Artemis III.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > block construction heat shield was new on Artemis I. Now we just know that it is an unfixed problem Unfixed problems on a new technology mean it’s still new. > Artemis III has nothing to do with in-orbit propellant transfer I may have fucked this up—isn’t the depot supposed to be up for III? Or is that punted to IV?
Teever 6mo ago
All of this stuff is really great but it's not worth the cost that was spent on it. The thing you have to keep asking yourself is "what could 100 billion dollars of non-pork barrel spending have bought instead of what we ended up with?"
- noosphr 6mo ago
  A month of war in the middle east.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > All of this stuff is really great but it's not worth the cost that was spent on it It’s building towards a system. If we get Starship and in-orbit propellant depots and a lunar nuclear reactor and then kill the programme, it will probably be judged by history as a success. > what could 100 billion dollars of non-pork barrel spending have bought instead of what we ended up with? Rien. This is the system we have, and it’s unclear such a program could have survived sans pork.
  - Teever 6mo ago
    It may be building towards a system. Or it could all be cancelled in 3-4 weeks after these four explorers burn up on reentry. And then all these hopes and dreams that you have will be gone, like that $100 billion dollars just up in smoke. I can tell that you're as passionate about space exploration and colonization as I am, but this isn't the way my friend. This program is coming at the cost of the Aldrin Cyclers and Von Braun Wheels that you and I know could and should have existed decades ago and while you may think that those things will come from this program I think you should consider the fact that root cause of this program's dysfunction is what is denying us this reality of humanity spreading across the stars.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > It may be building towards a system It may build. It is building. > it could all be cancelled in 3-4 weeks after these four explorers burn up We’d have wasted money. But we’d still be ahead. Artemis has funded a lot of development. > can tell that you're as passionate about space exploration and colonization as I am, but this isn't the way my friend In a perfect world? No. Is it a legitimate way? Absolutely. We’re still moving forward. > This program is coming at the cost of the Aldrin Cyclers and Von Braun Wheels Nobody is funding these. We’re beating the Chinese to land. That clicks. That sells. Space-based infrastructure is hallucinated competition. > that root cause of this program's dysfunction is what is denying us this reality The alternative is we spend NASA’s Artemis budget on Medicaid billing at autism centers in Indiana. I’d prefer the vision you painted. But I won’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. This program moves us forward and funds roads to alternatives. Starship, for example.
kevin_thibedeau 6mo ago
It isn't moving forward. It's an ill-conceived Apollo 1.5 with the MIC calling all the shots and a lander that is MIA. China is doing Apollo 2.0 which is fine considering this is their first attempt. The US needs a modular launch system with orbital booster tugs that can be mixed in various combinations for different mission profiles. One big booster with all of the risk stacked onto billion dollar launches is not the future we should be working toward.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > US needs a modular launch system with orbital booster tugs that can be mixed in various combinations for different mission profiles This is what the propellant depot is building towards.
dylan604 6mo ago
> in-obit propellant transfer I'm hoping they can do it in-orbit. We've had enough NASA obits
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  Hehe. Obits to be avoided in obisular orbits.

GaryBluto 6mo ago

It's not about the Orion unit specifically but the fact that this is happening in the first place. This is simply a precursor to future missions and the construction of the Artemis Base Camp.

MattGrommes 6mo ago

It's silly to say there's no innovation here. These aren't legos that you just snap together. I'm sure there are innovations up and down the whole thing, using the old technology they have easily available to them. No, it's not the most modern Rocket Lab or SpaceX project but they have immense drag on their process that those companies don't have and they still got the dang thing up and headed toward the moon.

s5300 6mo ago
[dead]
KennyBlanken 6mo ago
That old technology wasn't remotely "easy" and the reason the top minds aren't going to NASA is because nobody wants to work on tech selected for maximum pork.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]

general_reveal 6mo ago

So, are you suggesting we should not misunderstand “just business” as “glorious human achievement”?

NetMageSCW 6mo ago

I believe the fourth is actually built from left over STS engine parts and they haven’t gotten to the clones yet.

feyman_r 6mo ago

Its true that innovation isn't clearly shown in this mission; we also haven't flown humans out that far in more than 50 years either and while we have memories of it, our ability to even execute something like this must be built again. I'd rather see us doing this and 'pick up from where we were last time', than giving up on it or just using a stack that's not currently set to do this. What Artemis is doing is not impeding innovation: its building our muscle back to work on such things; the discipline, rigor, scale, and attitude needed to execute such missions is unimaginable and orthogonal to the technical innovation and stack used. I also believe that its completely fine to use a 2000s-era flight computer, if that suffices for this purpose. Somehow, for such critical missions, my mental model is to use at least 10 year old technology that has stood the test of time, before going into space. If there's a need for the latest technology - then yes, it should be leveraged.

m4rtink 6mo ago
Not impending innovation is IMHO debatable - Artemis has definitely potential to motivate a lot of lay population & young people to go do space stuff and tech in general. On the other hand SLS and Orion have gobbled insane amount of money that could have been invested to other science missions or even more efficient human space flight.
KennyBlanken 6mo ago
> our ability to even execute something like this must be built again Why? Because "dreams"? "Reach for the stars"? You know what I remember from the shuttle launches as a kid? I remember my school not being able to afford textbooks but apparently we had enough to spend billions on putting people in space for no reason.
- nirav72 6mo ago
  Do you honestly believe that by repurposing money from missions like these would suddenly free up money for text books? That’s not how it works. Especially not in 2026.
  - 6mo ago

m4rtink 6mo ago

IIRC there are some hydrogen powered APUs on the SLS core stage, replacing the Hydrazine powered ones used on Shuttle (both on orbiter & SRBs). The solar panel control on the Orion also seems coo and useful, not to mention having cameras on the arrays for self-inspections. I am sure there are more subtle innovations like this that would hopefully be useful on more sensible rockets and space vehicles in the future. :)

titzer 6mo ago

It's in orbit. I for one love the fact they recycled some well-designed engines and made this mission a success (so far).

longislandguido 6mo ago

We'll be sure to give you a ring when the Moon base needs food delivery apps in the year 2347.

Keyframe 6mo ago

This read like one of those "I could've done this in a weekend" replies to app launches.

dylan604 6mo ago

While that might be true, it is on course to the moon now. Starship hasn't really done anything close. So while cheaper might be on the way, it doesn't exist now. When Starship can do now, we can talk about if the Shuttle Leftover System is ready to be retired

WaterRun 6mo ago
Starship is not designed for high-orbit deep-space missions; it is more like a cargo truck for low Earth orbit.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- dylan604 6mo ago
  Fine, but you're dodging the actual point here I think
- mulmen 6mo ago
  So you agree that SLS provides useful functionality and that Musk lied about Starship being a Mars bus.
- NetMageSCW 6mo ago
  That’s incorrect — it is both. That’s why orbital refueling is so important to Starship’s future.

KennyBlanken 6mo ago

The Artemis was a pork barrel project to feed federal tax money to all the states that had huge space shuttle contracts. That and NASA is pathologically terrified of anything resembling innovation.

neya 6mo ago

Yeah, fuck the engineers who worked full time and ran many simulations tirelessly and worked out the best stack for this mission, right? Most of the combustion engines in your car are still from designs late 60s - 80s (Eg. Renault). Does that mean it's a travesty too? Let me guess, a bunch of dudes sitting in SF in a garage could have made a better rocket that runs on ReactJS, right? Because NASA BAD. Give me a break.

hsuduebc2 6mo ago

Well what are they suppose to do other than continue where they left it? As far I understand purpose of Artemis mission it is to build a pernamently occupied base on the moon not to build better and better rockets now. I mean, it's not the best solution but it is proven to work and they perceive it as enough for now. I think it's very similar to some critical systems still running code written in cobol sixty years ago.