So for a few more months/a couple of years, NASA will burn 10x more money? Nah, that's not smart. Unless politics is involved.
It's a government agency. Politics is always involved.
NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
91–100 of 1001 posts
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#92[flagged]
The ketamine addiction rumors are unproven, and Musk denies them.
He says he takes it as prescribed against occasional depression.
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#93Remind me why we need to get to the moon again?
Why must there be a NEED? Why did we ever send ships across the ocean to explore? Where was the need? People like doing science, and so we're doing science.
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#94> After a slew of unplanned explosions
Most were expected, when pushing the rocket to its limits to see where it would fail.
> the company achieved two sub-orbital missions for its monster rocket - impressive, but still more than 200,000 miles (322,000 km) from the Moon.
The test flights are suborbital due to FAA licensing requirements until they are ready to test returning to the launch tower. The role of Starship lander version in Artemis is not to directly launch to the Moon, but act as a shuttle between an orbiting vessel around the Moon and the surface of the Moon. So the comparison in miles is non-sensical.
> Acting Administrator Sean Duffy said the company was "behind schedule"
SpaceX is planning to test orbital refueling in 2026. It was originally scheduled for late summer of 2025, so not late with more than a couple of months. It is certainly not the slowest cog in the system. Now, it is scheduled for 2027, and SpaceX will likely test in H1 of 2026.
> Elon Musk, the boss of SpaceX, fired back: "SpaceX is moving like lightning compared to the rest of the space industry. Moreover, Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission. Mark my words."
SpaceX can completely drop out of the Artemis program and still bring astronauts to the moon earlier than Artemis.
---
There are also delays with Boeing, Axiom, Lockheed Martin (and Blue Origin although for a different mission).
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#95I'm not really sure if keeping a strict schedule has any real relevance here, outside maybe PR and politics. Starships will drop the cost to other bodies in the same way Falcon dropped the cost to orbit. Why would anyone want to invest in a technology and a project that will be obsolete by the time it's implemented?
That is assuming Starship succeeds. Elon's track record hasn't exactly been stellar as of late.
stellar :)
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#96Remind me why we need to get to the moon again?
So we can delay dealing with the complete unrealism of our expectations of the future.
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#97[flagged]
Back then you'd get two legs of the Correct - Fast - Cheap triangle. It just required shoveling boatloads of money at the defense contractors. Now you can give Boeing twice as much money as SpaceX and they still fail to deliver a working product in twice the time.
That's because Boeing followed the leadership failure curve when McDonnell-Douglas took them over: Engineer -> Accountant (they are here) -> Lawyer.
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#98Remind me why we need to get to the moon again?
Why must there be a NEED? Why did we ever send ships across the ocean to explore? Where was the need? People like doing science, and so we're doing science.
That was (for the western hemisphere) mostly to steal gold and silver from other civilizations. Oh, and to grow addictive drugs for export, like in Virginia. It was never done for other than banal reasons, although I'm sure pious rationalizations were offered to make people feel better about the ongoing genocides.
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a pretty good chance, actually. They are almost done with the hard parts of the Starship.
I wouldn't say "almost done" - orbital refueling is likely one of the hard parts, and it wasn't attempted yet.
> orbital refueling is likely one of the hard parts
It's the most novel and riskiest. I wouldn't say it's hardest. That's launch, reëntry and reüse. They've substantially de-risked those components with IFT-11.
I'd put IFT-12 validating Block 3 as the actual hardest launch next year. If that goes smoothly, I'm betting they make orbit and propellant transfer before the end of the year. And if that happens, I'm betting they get at least one rocket off to Mars before year end.
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#100I'm not really sure if keeping a strict schedule has any real relevance here, outside maybe PR and politics. Starships will drop the cost to other bodies in the same way Falcon dropped the cost to orbit. Why would anyone want to invest in a technology and a project that will be obsolete by the time it's implemented?
> not really sure if keeping a strict schedule has any real relevance here You don't see the relevance of Artemis III launching in mid-2027 [1] or 2028 versus, say, after November 2028? [1] https://www.nasa.gov/mission/artemis-iii/
I don't see any real possibility of Artemis 3 launching before 2030, frankly. That "mid-2027" timeline is a joke said with a straight face.
There are enough contractors involved and enough delay potential on the table that getting all the ducks in the row in time for the 2027 date would require nothing short of divine intervention.