ZooNamedGames

Honestly every American launch provider is down this year. Likely because ULA, Boeing, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, NASA, & Blue Origin are all spending their funds on RnD, assembly and production of their next generation vehicles- with Boeing and SpaceX focused on their manned vehicles at the forefront.

To recover their boosters and fairings they must maintain and operate- autonomous drone ships, ferries, maintain landing sites- build landing legs, pay to repair and replace reusable parts, recoat heat sensitive parts with thermal sealants, etc etc etc. These are all things expendable rockets don’t have to pay for. Not to mention SpaceX doesn’t have a chance to maximize very long on each booster as they get a max of like 5 flights before they’re thrown away. So they’re likely spending their financial returns from reusing boosters- on making new ones with a resulting net profit of ~0. Very true. About SLS not every other agency in existence.

I’ve read a report that said otherwise and no intent on that changing.

Issue is SpaceX, the primary developer of large reusable technology hasn’t shown enough of a financial return on their developments to prove useful. Launch costs remains fixed and unwavering. Not even spacex can find it reasonable to spend money developing a vehicle that would be assembled and launched- at best they see launching a core vehicle that’s refueled in orbit. It’s simply not feasible to use F9 sized vehicles to go anywhere but LEO. You end up needing Super Heavy sized vehicles to get anywhere while being reusable- and we don’t even know if that works at that scale. So it’s entirely unproven. Expendable is, and isn’t trying to save money and fail like reusable technology is.

I’ve assessed enough to know what I’m talking about.

SpaceX has already done some big PR pushes. The issue is people forget. And one campaign from the other major names and SpaceX's platform can be thrown off massively- and ofc those other names will be pushing NASA, and not their own since through NASA they can do a lot more than what's shown. Also I'll step outside for the Atlas launch. I wasn't able to see the launch due to haze but maybe weather will cooperate this time. If you're not local then I hope you've booked multiple days here since it might not go the first time (though being ULA that's actually unlikely).

But based on public information they don't know of any other major organizations to explore space other than NASA. So to them it's NASA or nothing. So they care about it thinking it's their only option for space (again from I'm seeing SpaceX ain't as hot as it appears).

Assuming the people know other agencies other than NASA- but not knowing them- they won't support cutting NASA's budget. They don't see other companies they just see NASA, their beloved space agency's budget being cut. So such a decision would be up to the congress members who, would likely not bite since it's been well known Boeing, Lockheed and other major aerospace companies with investments into NASA don't want to see their budgets wasted so they'd likely kick back some $$$ to make sure their efforts keep going. Plus knowing the people would be happy, Congress would likely agree to support NASA for it. SpaceX just doesn't have the same kind of pull as those big names.

But they still identify with NASA as the explorers. So cutting their budget would denote a negative response from the public.

That might work but recently talking to people and people talking to their peers have found that SpaceX ain't as big of a name as we think of it as. A kid in high school polled his peers and most didn't know SpaceX nor any non-NASA agency. And most of my peers in my aviation maintanence course (adults ranging in age from 21-45) also aren't too familiar with SpaceX and have to be reminded- "Elon Musk's company... the one that lands rockets" "... ... ... ... oh yeah I remember that". So don't overestimate SpaceX's value in the public's eyes.

Almost. Yet you forget Tesla is constantly under fire for some problem. Starlink has 60 satellites. A very small number- could grow yes, but for the time being that isn't much to say especially since it's only to LEO- Mars orbit is vastly different. Not only is gravity different, but solar radiation is vastly harsher- and there's no way to save the satellites should they drift from orbit. Boring Company is still a developmental company and Hyperloop and those related concepts are just glorified subways but with vastly lower throughput of passengers per hour due to the low vehicle passenger capacity. Not to mention SpaceX is also struggling just to get crews to Earth orbit- hell- crews to space period. So far we've got a vehicle but it's grounded right next to Boeing. A vehicle which likely isn't even able to leave LEO as it isn't built for deep space radiation or the extended life support. SpaceX has only 1 vehicle that could feasibly do such a mission and it isn't even planned for Mars until 2030 at best- 2040 more likely. One could easily say that funding the right programs at NASA could yield the same kickback by taking cheap paths on research projects. Thus keeping NASA's budget. Congress does want to cut NASA's budget but the people like NASA (there's a high approval rating overall), so additional funding being cut would only raise more rabble from the people. But I'll leave that there since this is definitely entering political territory and 2.2b.

I still say unlikely- as NASA is more than just rocket launching. They also fund scientific endeavors across the globe- on the globe, public education, funding scientific groups, funding new aerospace companies, working with the FAA. Honestly it'd be easier to list things NASA doesn't do. So they likely wouldn't cut NASA's budget much since it would just be better spent researching than building and flying.

That's your issue though. You keep assuming SpaceX will have the funding to go on their own way- NASA isn't paying them to go to the moon and NASA is SpaceX's biggest client. Even if SpaceX did get there- they'd still launch the SLS a few times to get their money's worth out of it. SpaceX ain't having crews leave LEO without NASA's funding. SpaceX can barely get crews to space period, much less orbit, the ISS, the moon or SpaceX's former goal- Mars.

Here's your problems- 1) NASA is having to launch a Saturn V sized vehicle with less than half the budget than they had in the 60s. 2) Rocket development is costly. So high costs taxed with minimal budget means a long development time. 3) SLS exists in it's entirety and merely needs to have a few additional tests and full assembly. So there's no doubt it'll fly by 2021. There's simply nothing left to delay it- we've done every other conceivable test NASA can concoct for the vehicle. The only additional test after Stennis will be to launch it. 4) Musk can't afford to send crews to Mars without NASA funding and NASA won't fund Musk until they are ready for Mars or the moon. Most certainly not to ferry crews or anything other than non-essential cargo. SLS is the only man rated SHLV currently available that's completely created. 5) SLS doesn't need to fly as often as the Saturn V for us to get crews. We launched 4 Saturn Vs before Apollo 11 (Apollos 4, 6, 8, and 10). By cutting out the redundant launch of Apollo 6 and wrapping Apollo 7 and 8 into one mission (Artemis 2), by Artemis 3, we'll be ready to land on the surface of the moon again. Not to mention SLS will operate next to commercial vehicles which will be deploying and launching the essential hardware to make Artemis possible. 6) SLS was plagued by developmental delays, not general design or manufacturing delays. Production started in 2014 and it only took 5 years to produce the first article- a production cadence that's undoubtedly going to shrink now that changes to the vehicle or it's mission have stopped and a focused plan has been created. So SLS will not take nearly as long to produce a second time, or a third and so on. 7) NASA is guaranteed to launch SLS- SpaceX or any alternative is not. If there's a fault in Starship's development, a slip in funding, or some hold in construction, production or assembly, that's a hold on all BEO exploration. As long as NASA's committed- there's a guaranteed chance. No one in congress is going to cancel SLS after billions of dollars in funding. Even if Starship/SuperHeavy was ready by 2021- NASA still wouldn't consider it as it isn't man rated nor will it be tested to NASA's standards. As NASA knows the hazards of BEO exploration (Apollo 13). 8) Maybe the timeline is a bit hasty- but it sets a precedence to get things underway and once SLS is launching regularly- a moon mission goes from an impossibility to a mere discussion of "where do we want to land?". So maybe it won't be 2024. But once Artemis 2 flies, there will be nothing preventing NASA from launching crews to the orbit of the moon, and once they select a commercial developer for a lander, they can set foot on the moon. 9) NASA unlike SpaceX- has all the hardware and equipment already designed and ready for longterm lunar exploration, such as spacesuits, tools and equipment for exploring the moon and scientists who have been working with NASA engineers (and SLS/Orion!) to make sure their science and work is compatible with the next NASA program (which turned out to be Artemis). SpaceX has a space suit which has like a few hours of life support and lacks the option for the suit to receive external life support (something essential for EVAs). 10) You can't say that NASA makes unattainable promises- someone on my Discord server recently dug up an online article where Musk claimed to have Falcon 9 Heavy (pre Falcon Heavy renaming) flying by 2010. NASA has to make ambitious goals as taxpayers, congressmen or corporate entities are interested in investing in scientific advancement. They want pizazz and excitement. It's what Musk has been feeding off of- and the same reason why Bridenstine would make such a bold claim. Since if the corporations get fired up to get this done on time to become the heroes, then everyone benefits. NASA, the companies, the US taxpayers, the scientists, the youth of this generation and so many more. 11) SLS could be backdated to the 80s too if you really wanted to be technical. Issue back then wasn't funding but "do we need it".

Assuming SpaceX/Musk doesn't go bankrupt, Starship development goes smooth and a myriad of other small issues that must align perfectly for it to work. SLS will fly and will get us there. Yes it's taken time but unlike Musk, NASA doesn't try to bury the practical problems of developing the world's largest rocket. Also A3 is for the moon not Mars. Not even Musk has plans for Mars until the 30s (more likely the 40s or 50s).

Not likely. Looking at the compression artifacts my guess is that the image was either A) Highly compressed when it was uploaded to the internet or was compressed somewhere along the way as it was sent across the internet. Maybe by work email file size restrictions or just a program limitation on the file size. B) The image has been cropped, or duplicated and reduplicated with each update losing detail thus creating the muddy image. C) They didn't bother to check the camera quality before the test.

They probably have multiple variants of OMS depending on the vector and their angle. That and they could've tested the whole SM and just not shown it in the photo.

I'm guessing it's a thruster since the fuel on Orion is exceptionally toxic. (Hypergols), not to mention it lacks the AJ10 engine bell (unless their testing the pumps and fuel flow systems and not the actual thrust generated?).

It probably is ready for stacking. It’s just until they get the call to ship it to the cape for the stack- they’ll continue to tinker on it. As tinkering on the small details does not mean it can’t be packed up and shipped.

Is the engine section attached yet?

Well as someone taking aviation maintenance course right now- a vehicle is never 100% complete. There’s enough tiny tasks to keep an engineer busy for multiple decades. Tiles can be replaced as flaws literally 1/1000th of the safety threshold limit are discovered- the tile won’t need to be replaced but can be replaced for a better tile, and that takes additional time, and makes it look in progress even though the vehicle is above the call of duty for flight. Or one of a 3 part redundant back up electrical system may be sticking in an ON/OFF position and not functioning perfectly leading to more work done- despite it being completely unnecessary and resolvable by the other present systems but it’s work to be done to ensure the vehicle is COMPLETE. So it probably is complete- just not to the engineers who built it, and routinely tear parts off of it to fix one small issue, then rebuild it only to fix another issue, thus repeating the cycle ad nauseam.

As far as I am aware it's largely complete minus the heatsheild attachment which already exists.

https://www.space.com/orion-capsule-artemis-1-finished-photo.html Spaceflight.com has also covered this story and mentions Pences' intent to utilize other commercial vehicles should SLS not be ready. Though he has also stated that "SLS has always been underfunded" and that this term will not reflect the same mistake. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/vice-president-unveils-nasa-spacecraft-for-artemis-1-lunar-mission-on-moon-landing

Probably, after all it's designed to throw massive amounts of mass into orbit. So therefore no mass and reduced throttle (which the RS-25 is capable of) should be feasible. Pic is just relevant to the topic of the thread.

So would a fully fueled SLS core, assuming you could relight the RS-25s. Surprise surprise, refueling any vehicle with the ability to reignite the engines, is a big boost to DV. Also a photo from Rocket Emporium Discord