Bloomberg says that there is no need to put people on the moon for scientific purposes, and I think he's probably right about that. That's not to say, though, that there might be other reasons for putting people on the moon or for sending people elsewhere in the solar system for scientific or other purposes. Non-scientific purposes for people on the moon might include national prestige (obviously the major point of Apollo, and also, I think, the major point of Artemis after corporate welfare and jobs), resource development, and development and testing of space technology.
The problems start with the mission, which is more political than scientific. There is little humans can do on the moon that robots cannot. Technology has come a long way since 1969, to put it mildly. We do not need another person on the moon to collect rocks or take scientific measurements. And the costs of putting people on the moon and of planning for their potential rescue, should complications arise are truly astronomical.
NSF's Philip Sloss spoke with Steve Wofford, NASA SLS Stages Element manager, about completing expansion work for NASA SLS Core Stage production at KSC.
Isn't Boeing trying to sell their NASA business? Also, will SLS be scrapped the next 4 years by the "Department Of Government Efficiency" "DOGE by Musk? With a stripped down Starship upper stage, without fins, TPS, etc, it can launch using the reusable booster about 250 tons. That is over double what SLS can do for $1 or $2 billion at a much lower price. If SpaceX and Blue Origin get their big boosters going, you have competition and reuse at a lower price. It seems to make no sense to keep going with SLS.
Nov 9, 2024Everyone is waiting to see what plans are in store for the second President Trump term after he was re-elected, but it's less than a week since Election Day; in the meantime, I'll recap my recent interview with NASA SLS Stages manager Steve Wofford. Boeing has completed the first two stage units and handed them over to NASA, so I asked about the current production status for the next three builds. NASA has two of them fully under contract, so I asked how the next one, the fifth unit, is being contracted.I also go over a couple of non-election news items: SpaceX announced a target launch date for the next Starship flight test and apparently has decided not to lease High Bay 1 in the Vehicle Assembly Building at Kennedy Space Center.Couple of footnotes:1. Adding a link in the video to the NSF story ended up being more distracting than it was worth; the link is in the description below.2. In the video, I refer to "Michoud," which is NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans. That's the primary production site for SLS stages.Imagery is courtesy of NASA, except where noted.Stories, papers cited:https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/11/core-stage-facility-expansion/https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230001023https://www.npr.org/2024/11/07/nx-s1-5182280/trump-2024-elon-musk-tesla-x00:00 Intro00:33 Recap of interview with NASA SLS Stages Element manager Steve Wofford01:42 Restarting production of Core Stage main propulsion system components08:40 Core Stage-3 production status14:12 Core Stage-4 production status18:49 When is Core Stage-5 engine section production going to start?23:25 News and notes for the week, Trump re-elected24:14 Starship flight test 6 target launch date announced24:53 VAB High Bay 1 commercial lease status27:10 Thanks for watching!
To be clear we are *far* from anything being settled, but based on what I'm hearing it seems at least 50-50 that NASA's Space Launch System rocket will be canceled. Not Block 1B. Not Block 2. All of it. There are other ways to get Orion to the Moon.
Eric Berger now has a tweet up saying that there is an even chance ALL of SLS is canceled.QuoteTo be clear we are *far* from anything being settled, but based on what I'm hearing it seems at least 50-50 that NASA's Space Launch System rocket will be canceled. Not Block 1B. Not Block 2. All of it. There are other ways to get Orion to the Moon.
My sense is that the solution would be launching Orion on one rocket (probably FH, from 39A) and then docking with a (separately launched) Centaur V and boosting it to the Moon.
https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1856538263915225194?s=19Quote My sense is that the solution would be launching Orion on one rocket (probably FH, from 39A) and then docking with a (separately launched) Centaur V and boosting it to the Moon.
Eric Berger now has a tweet up saying that there is an even chance ALL of SLS is canceled.https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1856522880143745133QuoteTo be clear we are *far* from anything being settled, but based on what I'm hearing it seems at least 50-50 that NASA's Space Launch System rocket will be canceled. Not Block 1B. Not Block 2. All of it. There are other ways to get Orion to the Moon.
Quote from: panjabi on 11/13/2024 01:35 amEric Berger now has a tweet up saying that there is an even chance ALL of SLS is canceled.QuoteTo be clear we are *far* from anything being settled, but based on what I'm hearing it seems at least 50-50 that NASA's Space Launch System rocket will be canceled. Not Block 1B. Not Block 2. All of it. There are other ways to get Orion to the Moon.Follow up to Scott ManleyThe return of Bridenstein's Monsterhttps://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1856538263915225194?s=19Quote My sense is that the solution would be launching Orion on one rocket (probably FH, from 39A) and then docking with a (separately launched) Centaur V and boosting it to the Moon.
Regarding another (hardware rich) launch system there's been a line of thinking that the most efficient way to dispose of excess vehicles is to launch them.
Worst case scenario: it flies its current profile without a crew and some valuable real-world data is gleaned from the Orion heat shield performance.
Regarding another (hardware rich) launch system there's been a line of thinking that the most efficient way to dispose of excess vehicles is to launch them. I wonder if that also applies to SLS and its components, particularly the ones for Artemis II? If so, why not start stacking the SRBs now? Worst case scenario: it flies its current profile without a crew and some valuable real-world data is gleaned from the Orion heat shield performance.
Quote from: sdsds on 11/13/2024 11:43 pmRegarding another (hardware rich) launch system there's been a line of thinking that the most efficient way to dispose of excess vehicles is to launch them.That would be the most costly method.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 11/13/2024 11:57 pmQuote from: sdsds on 11/13/2024 11:43 pmRegarding another (hardware rich) launch system there's been a line of thinking that the most efficient way to dispose of excess vehicles is to launch them.That would be the most costly method.If I understand you correctly, you mean disposing of the Artemis II hardware by launching the mission would involve a large outflow of dollars from the US Treasury. That's a reasonable measure of cost, and yet it doesn't include gain or loss of intangibles like national prestige and soft power. Nor does it include costs carried by entities other than the US Treasury. Abrupt project cancellations can impose painful losses on the associated workforce, and slow the local economies their households support. Both the current Senators from Florida have been much in the news recently, and would presumably be sensitive to those costs.A slower transition phasing out SLS by launching Artemis II (and possibly even Artemis III) would preserve some amount of national prestige (prevent some amount of national embarrassment) while providing the workforce and the local economies a smoother transition to the new reality.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 11/13/2024 11:57 pmQuote from: sdsds on 11/13/2024 11:43 pmRegarding another (hardware rich) launch system there's been a line of thinking that the most efficient way to dispose of excess vehicles is to launch them.That would be the most costly method.If I understand you correctly, you mean disposing of the Artemis II hardware by launching the mission would involve a large outflow of dollars from the US Treasury.
That's a reasonable measure of cost, and yet it doesn't include gain or loss of intangibles like national prestige and soft power.
Nor does it include costs carried by entities other than the US Treasury. Abrupt project cancellations can impose painful losses on the associated workforce, and slow the local economies their households support. Both the current Senators from Florida have been much in the news recently, and would presumably be sensitive to those costs.
A slower transition phasing out SLS by launching Artemis II (and possibly even Artemis III)
...would preserve some amount of national prestige (prevent some amount of national embarrassment) while providing the workforce and the local economies a smoother transition to the new reality.
