UNACCEPTABLE!! Artemis 2 will not launch until 2025 at best!? Why????
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 12. 2022
- So, NASA is officially targeting late 2024 for the launch of Artemis 2, which seems absurdly long, given the fact that the next SLS and European Service Module are nearly complete. But NASA's plan is actually worse than that!
#space #nasa #spacex
Check out my latest merch!!
stay-angry.creator-spring.com...
10% off promo code
CAKP2
Please support my channel! EARLY VIDEO RELEASES, DISCORD MEMBERSHIP AND EXCLUSIVE CONTENT PLUS 15% OFF MERCH!
/ angryastronaut
www.paypal.com/paypalme/Angry...
If you already pre-ordered your Angry Astronaut sunglasses, please email me at jwrighttpsc@gmail.com and we will send you a form to fill in your shipping info and send you an invoice!
WE STILL HAVE 3 PAIRS LEFT out of this 250 pair limited edition!!!
If you want to reserve a pair of ANGRY SUNGLASSES, please send $20 US, Australian or Canadian to:
www.paypal.com/paypalme/Angry...
The FINAL price is $40 US plus shipping
NASA OIG Report
oig.nasa.gov/docs/MC-2022.pdf - Věda a technologie
Isn't the purpose of Artemis to keep the Shuttle work force employed? I don't think our representatives in Congress actually care if we land on the moon.
Imagine my shock. Of course they don't care. In fact I think most Governments across the world are opposed to humanity expanding beyond earth and for a big reason...control. If the common man were to have unrestricted access to space and the solar system then Governments on earth would lose control of us. It would be a new era of people fleeing earth due to oppression and hoping to start a new life beyond Earth. Freedom vs Tyranny once again
I doubt that they actually care the actual value of landing on the moon like many of us do. It's mainly for politics and the Big Club's money. Just see what they did for Blue Origin and you'll get the idea.
My thought exactly! The longer they can stretch this out, the more costs can overrun and the more corruption and incompetence will be involved and likely ensure the entire concept will eventually end up mothballed. In my opinion this specific program and hardware will never touch the surface of the moon, and likely was never actually intended to, it was all a lie to squander money for the companies involved, share holders in those companies, (including the politicians who promoted it), and has been just another massive tax payer funded "jobs program".
That is correct. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. Unless congress or the president actually want to go to the Moon, Artemis will only remain a Jobs program.
Course they don't
all they care about iss what their owners on wall street say
It's just ridiculous. It took alrerady 8 years from the first unmanned flight of Orion to the still unmanned Artemis 1 flight. That was longer than the entire manned phase of the Apollo program between 10/1968 and 7/1975.
Do you not understand how EVERYTHING was different during the Apollo era? That we were in competition with the USSR, so had the backing of most of the US government?
@@spacexrocks1041 But, in the 1960s, they were starting from *zero*. They didn't even know if what they were trying was even *possible*. And they had no preexisting infrastructure or knowledge base to start from.
Orion/SLS/Artemis has no such excuse. It should have been *easily* able to accomplish what Apollo did, and exceed it, with a fraction of Apollo's budget. Instead, we're paying more for RS-25s to throw away than we originally paid for them to be reusable on the Shuttle. We're paying more (in inflation-adjusted dollars) to make alterations to the VAB and Mobile Launch Platform than it took to create them from scratch circa 1965. And the list goes on.
Exactly
There is new competition, China will probably put people (or kill them trying) on the moon before 2025.
It's just to ensure that if Trump gets back into office the landing won't happen while he is in office.
j/k
That is a launch cadence that will completely fail to excite anyone except those that want to cut the whole programme!
and now it is 100% clear that no Gateway will be built, at least as it was advertised
2:22 That picture of Orion/Artemis 18k miles from Earth is incredible. Is that not the planet approach in every major Sci fi movie or what. Omg
!8K miles? I never saw anyone mix up metric and imperial units that silly.
@@vincewilson1 there was one Mars orbiter that had the same problem
Could we really expect anything else considering how long the first one took 😟
I'm starting to worry that NASA isn't going back ever.
Artemis II will arrive just in time for SpaceX's seventh Maezawa lunar mission, with 12 spacewalking mimes as passengers.
Now that ewould be a sight to behold
... with 12 spacewalking mimes and 2 Tesla Bots as passengers.
....or Taikonauts claiming that those astronauts are trespassing.
They're going to miss the Christmas party is what they're going to do.
And when exactly did Starship last launch?
5 may 2021.
In all likelyhood they will also have 24 months plus between launches, and that is just for crude prototypes.
Even worse, I think SpaceX figured out that Starship does not work in its current evolution. Otherwise they had launched it long ago.
The first flight of Orion to Artemis 1 took 8 years. Dont hold your breath for 2025.
SpaceX could land the first pioneers on Mars before NASA lands on the Moon.
@@classic_sci_fi Those pioneers would be dead before they got there.
@@tankourito5419 People also thought Columbus was going to sail off the end of the earth when he left.....
What are you talking about Flat Earth Theory was already debunked by then
@@liamproductions1115 There are people who still believe the Earth is flat today. What are you talking about? The large majority of the populace of people in Europe in 1400's were uneducated....and "debunking" wasnt even a thing...or a word for that matter. The people who "knew" did not care what others "didnt know".
Surely this proves the need to get SpaceX up and out there
Why do you think that will be easy?
@@codetech5598 Indeed. I haven't seen them launch their monster rocket yet . Let alone get starship back through the atmosphere with those heatshields that keep falling off
@Code Tech, they never said it will be easy.
Fact is SpaceX is 10x more effective at system development and 100x more cost effective.
Even though starship has way more development to complete before manned missions SpaceX is more likely to get it done... assuming there is no further government interference.
@@christopherbeddoe406 Yeah, SpaceX is more cost effective in reaching LEO.
Starship has still a very long way to go. First let see if they get the whole thing launched, than they will have to fix all the current problems that do still exist, and only after that they will have to learn how to do a refuel in LEO. All of this will maybe be for 2026 the earliest, but probably 2027.
Meaning that a first mission to the Moon is at least still five to six years away from now.
Sorry to see you leaving England. Thank you for all the great reporting and information you've provided us!!!
Safe travels!
Nasa has too many directors, chiefs, associate directors, associate chiefs, and various high-ranking hangers-on.
Too many in Congress and Senate using them for pork.
The entire process for awarding government contracts needs to be overhauled.
Corrupt politicians are the leading cause of everything.
Bingo! The longer they can stretch this out, the more costs can overrun and the more corruption and incompetence will be involved and likely ensure the entire concept will eventually end up mothballed. In my opinion this specific program and hardware will never touch the surface of the moon, and likely was never actually intended to, it was all a lie to squander money for the companies involved, share holders in those companies, (including the politicians who promoted it), and has been just another massive tax payer funded "jobs program".
So who's going to do the reforming??? Not the corrupt politicians, that's for damn sure!!
If corrupt politicians are the leading cause of "everything", does that include cancer?
@@spacexrocks1041 could be why we dont have a cure
0:13 In a perfect world, Director Nelson would call a meeting with the Orion/Artemis team with only one question: What would it take to recreate the Apollo 8 next December?
1968 NASA: "Well, we'll have to take some serious risks, but we can probably get it done."
Modern NASA: "Can't be done."
Boeing: "10 years, $100B."
SpaceX: "Well, we'll have to take some serious risks, but we can probably get it done."
@@firehawkdelta : Yeah, even Musk would probably say June 2024.
A miracle
Your fine video illustrates why many of us are SpaceX enthusiasts. We share your reservations about refueling and acknowledge there is a lot of development and testing still needed for Starship.
But look at the record of SLS, NASA, politicians, and Boeing for reusability, timeliness, and new technology! I was between 9th and 10th grade when we first landed on the moon. In a few weeks I will be 70 years old. Humans have not been further than low earth orbit since 1972. I am very tired of promises of great advances that are always 10 to 20 years down the road. SpaceX may not be a certainty, but it is our best shot for real advances.
I agree
The star ship has a small wings and that can’t land on the moon or mars 😢
@@trollking202 uh that's because the one that's in testing rn is different from the finalised starship
Yep, need two sets so they can launch avionics set #2 while refurbing set #1. Leap frog method. Bigger problem is space suits not ready, expensive launch pad must be refurbbed, and they have to have all the parts ready to go when the external boosters are ready. And is it Artemis 3 or 4 that needs to be ready at same time as StarShip HLS? There's a lot of balls in the air right now.
A very merry Christmas to you. It's been great having you here. Looking forward to you returning.
The title Rocket Scientist doesn’t carry the weight it once did. The 1960’s space program puts the current efforts to shame.
We choose to go to the Moon in this century and if the budget allows, do some other things ...
And future administrations don't cancel it at the beginning of their term and start a new plan just before leaving office. Rinse and repeat.
Given all the delays and problems with the Starship system, there isn't really much pressure on SLS to do anything quickly at this point, even if they could.
People poke fun at ‘Elon Time’ but look how long it took to get Artemis I into space. More important to note is the speed at which SpaceX kicks up their launch cadence at the end of development. They are now sending diverse missions at the rate of more than one per week! 😎
Not the heavy though
@@viktorrietveld No point in launching when there's no payload ready for it... To my understanding there's 5 Falcon Heavy launches scheduled for 2023, the first one being a Viasat satellite that was originally supposed to launch in 2019 but is only now ready to go.
Elon always overpromises delivery times. Always.
@@spacexrocks1041 "doing the impossible late" Though late, he deleivers much faster than NASA or Boeing.
@@jounik Keep on dreaming. I can already tell you that this will not happen. Despite all the nice youtube videos you can find about this topic made by the many great people who put their precious time into it, we will not see any real mission of Starship before 2026/2027.
Despite all the dreams of so many we will not see a succesfull launch with all engines working before 2024. The moment they have done this for a first time they will still have to work on the further progress, because it is only after a first launch and succesfull re-entry that you have the data needed to improve things that have gone wrong.
This is gonna take SpaceX until the end of 2025, and only than will they start to learn how to make a succesfull refuelment in low earth orbit. This is never done before, so expect some setbacks.
Mark my words, the first serious mission of Starship will not be before the end of 2026 start 2027.
It's all a matter of bonus check enhancements for a certain legacy company. It's all really about yachts the need to have the biggest. Yachts are very expensive. Must have many enhanced bonus checks to pay for them. Can't really expect the upper echelon management to sail around the Caribbean in dingys.
I supposed they could've made two sets of avionics and staggered them between refurbishing for launch to keep up with the initial schedule, notwithstanding implied costs
They are going to need more sets of avionics if they are going to keep a base on the moon supplied.
In the meantime. It seems Starship could really use a robust launch pad with a flame trench nearby their existing infrastructure..all they need is another launch tower....What a coincidence.
Isn't there an old launch mount laying around as well?
By the time anyone else needs it 39C or whatever they'll call it could be available.
There's also really tall 4 bay building nearby that doesn't seem to get much use.
Yeah this is sad news , why soooooo long until the next flight Jeez we launched 7 Apollo flights in what 4-5 yrs, disappointing to the max!
MONEY. NASA's budget was 3-4% from 1965-67 - now it's 1% or less.
With the pace of the starship orbital launch, I’m not really sure how the hell they’re going to have a lunar fairing vehicle by Artemis III or IV
Many years ago I remember reading about the lawsuits between EU and US on subsidies concerning Boeing and Airbus.
Basically, if I remember correctly, WTO rules dictate that certain subsidies were not allowed.
So is SLS and it's coming successor not just a way of circumventing those rules?
This wasteful program needs to be brought to a end before it adds to the list of 15 dead US astronauts who died in the pursuit of knowledge. It is a congressional ATM and personally I think the money should be spent on earth orbital refueling systems. That would be the gateway provided they could orbit high enough to avoid debris. No more 60s reruns, lets go to Mars.
SLS is a government contract. Airbus and Boeing projects were commercial projects receiving government funds.
@@DavidKnowles0 SLS does in part profit companies such as Boeing, which the US may want to subsidize. Does it not?
The main thing holding up Artemis is Starship HLS and the million launches needed to fuel the lander .Taking ya lunar lander with you in one launch seems the best idea ........oh snap thats already been done .
Just noticed this link in my You Tube feed this morning. It is said for people who were either to young or not yet born in the 1960's when, we took the first of many trips to the moon. During the decade of the 1960's, we had a real "Space Program" with a real mission to send men to the moon and return them safely to earth. Even in the 1970's, the goal was to place a space station in orbit around the earth which, we did with "Skylab". Going back to the moon, why? As for myself, I get more enjoyment with watching unmanned missions to other planets throughout our solar system (smile...smile).
Artemis 1 was supposed to be launched in 2017 and Artemis II in 2020. That was in the original plan. NASA had that 27 months gap on the Original plan.
Hey angry, good video. It's true, Nasa should have at least 4 or 5 Orion Capsules and this avionics boxes recicling should be performed in the latter ones, letting NASA to always have some spear Orion capsules.
Avionics is just a fancy word for computers.
It's going to take them 2 years to move computers?!
At this rate it would text NASA several decades to pull off a LAN party.
@@jtjames79 Very true. I think is a ridiculous way to develop a space system. I mean, look at the liquid leak problem with the Soyuz ship in the ISS. The Russians have some spear Soyuz crafts that could be launched to substitute the damaged one.
If an Orion capsule fails, the astronauts will have to wait 26 months to be rescued!
So sad how everything is corrupted all the money that is spent on a proxy war and they don't blink an eye to spend on. As a former employee at Rocketdyne in the 60's I don't think I will live long enough to see another SLS fly.
You may be able to see starship fly at least. Also didn’t rocketdyne produce the f-1? I’m curious about your involvement 😂
@@Gesso64 I was involved in the production of the of the 25, 75, 100, pound space engines or Directional Thrusters for the Apollo. Yes they did build the F1 Engine.
@@mikercflyer7383 that sounds like a dream. From your perspective how has designing and building rocket engines changed since then other than obvious things such as cad?
If you want more money for NASA, stop funding the pilot-killing F22 and F-35.
I worked in the Shuttle program at KSC from 1990 to 2010 and now retired, I don't think I will live long enough to see Artemis II.
I've been tweeting at Virgin Orbit for them to bring Jordan back to the UK and have him ride in Cosmic girl for the launch. Please join me.
I say again, much of this time is due to a very low risk tolerance. Apollo 8 launched on Dec 21, 68. 9,10 and 11 were all manned and flew within 7 months. Apollo 8 had a 50/50 chance of killing the astronauts. In todays safety climate it take years to build and flight ready the countless systems that make up every launch vehicle. These things are insanely complicated and something as simple as a loose connection could delay a launch for months. Yes, Space X does it, but it took years to get the current cadence, and going to the moon is entirely different than getting a few hundred kilometers up.
I'd like to see the interior of the orion 1 capsule after recent splashdown. No images I can find.
i agree totally - the pace of the program is ridiculously slow
It will probably be cancelled before that. I noticed there was an eerie quietness on the flight loops during this mission. No prelaunch readouts, no countdown, no narration during the ascent like on other NASA missions. No control room video, either. Just too quiet. Something seemed strangely off. I really feel like this flight was merely a "Proof of concept" mission and that folks in certain circles including the firing room and MCC knew this could likely be the first and last Artemis flight, ever.
So what you are saying is, the project will be canceled because it doesn't fit your definition of a stereotypical launch?
@Viola Abdelmalak No. Because they've already blown a ton of time and money on a project that is behind schedule and over budget, using 50-year-old technology while private companies like SpaceX have the potential to beat them in the race and do it cheaper. As private companies continue to advance and launch more frequently, I think the powers that be could at some point very well decide that it's not worth it. My noting the silence on the loops simply felt to me like a kind of somber rather than celebratory feeling in the air. A "first and last hurrah" kind of vibe. I am a big NASA fan, and I'd hate to see that happen, but it took so much and so long and cost so much just to get this one launch off the ground, I fear Artemis could go that way.
I don't see a rush without HLS and Gateway.
Welcome back to the United States. Thanks for your reporting. Have a Merry Christmas and a good rest!
Hey, Denver is closeish to me. If you find yourself in Montrose CO stop in and say hi😁
We had a functional space suit 50 years ago!!!
Insane.
We had spacesuits that barely lasted for a couple of days of use on the lunar surface. This time we intend to stay longer, and need suits that can survive the lunar dust.
Could additional money speed up the processing of the Artemis-1 avionics boxes for use on Artemis-2?
If these companies were serious about building space craft they would do what spacex is doing.
Bro building a spacecraft is no joke it take year even even with best engineers its not easy to build and plan a rocket dude.
@@Motioncbruv, the rockets can be built under 3 months.
2025?? Comon be real now! 2026 at best. Hopefully before the decade os over!
Why did they not manufacture more than one of the avionics for Orion? Then we would have new avionics ready to go. It could not cost much more than 1 set of avionics. Why not use space shuttle/ISS suits for Artemis II as they are not going to go outside or walk on the moon?
I was at Johnson space center visitor center, they assured us the next flight is in 16 months :-(
Why not have four different space craft of Orion that way they can rotate them? Like they did the space shuttle
Considering Artemis I cost billions...
@@liammeech3702just capsules
@@Gesso64 Just capsules? Do you have any idea how much the A1 capsule cost?
Artemis 2 should launch next summer Apollo launches were every six months
Apollo was a time where people actually cared about space
Site your current source.
Apollo had a sense of urgency. They had to get there by the end of the decade - 1960s.
I think strongly that Artemis 2 will launched in Christmas of 2024.
One of my favorite channels!
I'm Angry! I'm Angry. . . . . Ok Now What?
I am still trying to justify in my mind the existence of Artemis.
Seriously? You don't think we should go back to the moon, then on to Mars? Sad, sad, sad.
@@generalyellor8188 If the goal is Mars, then just go to Mars! The Moon won't help you with getting to or living and working on Mars. That sales pitch really needs to be called out for the nonsense it is.
@@DrMackSplackem : Depends on what you want to do. Building a Moon base makes it harder to abandon high orbit, which in turn makes it easier to pull off trips beyond the Moon. Further, if you want to do anything on a large scale, then mining the Moon makes _that_ far cheaper.
I thought this was all for helium-3 because that's what China wants too. But now I'm confused xD
Going to the Moon to stay is a very justifiable goal. The way its being undertaken is a major problem.
Wait you guys believed the 2024 window?
If the Space Shuttle could launch 4 times a year, so could the SLS.
This is entirely plan driven, not hardware driven.
look how clean the floors are of the rocket assembly factory are. looks brand new never used
I agree, the Artemis is a flawed concept. Too expensive, to much turn around time, and always starting from zero.
Since HLS isn't even close to being finished, Artemis 3 can't happen for a long time.
SLS is a heavy lift vehicle with only a handful of uses. It is never supposed to launch more than once or twice a year.. commercial crew is supposed to handle most things entering low Earth orbit. With this knowledge, it isn't a big surprise the launches especially early on have long gaps.
Thank you for your analysis, although I have to point out that to compete with the Chinese space problem is a terrible reason for the American human space effort. If it is not critical for national security, the U.S. space industry (private sector and the Government) should do things at their own pace.
A 27 month delay will lead to a loss of mission steam.
What was the plan if they did get Orion back?
MLT, the mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich that is the mobile launch tower is a cause of major concern. That thing is a patchwork of bodged together components each built by the lowest bidder. It has been the cause of far too many scrubs and it was damaged during the single successful launch of SLS. Even in that one instance, it still caused a delay. That thing should never be used again!
But the 27 months is to reuse a component from the artemis 1? This is completely insane!
Oh well, maybe by that time, the Lunar Starship will be ready. *sigh*
Edit: What?!! They want to "test components to failure then reuse them"??? Do I have to spell out why this is a bad idea?
As Scott Manley would say..... Fly Safe !!!
see you again soon.
It's understandable for people to be eager to get the launches to the moon more ASAP but when sending people nasa must be sure the systems are safe
By the time Arty 2 flies, we will already be using multi-dimensional worm holes to beam directly to the moon…and anywhere else 😅
No way. You'll use the 1 dimensional worm holes that we used when I was a kid. These new fangled things aren't needed.
I hope so.
Why are they reusing parts on the second mission. Surely it would make sense to get a number of these reusable systems in circulation and flight rate up.
The answer to that is money. It is expensive to have multiple sets of complex electronic hardware.
NASA needs to stop looking at the future through yesterday's lens.
A snail could crawl from the VB to the launch tower and back about 4 times before Artemis 2 launches. And that includes resting at night and stopping for a week to watch the Stanley Cup finals in both '23 and '24.
Why oh why does it take 27 months to reuse existing working, flight tested avionics? What are the engineers doing for 27 months? Testing does not take that long if you have already developed the test procedures. They just need to reexecute the original tests they ran to certify the hardware in the first place.
Three words: "Cost plus contracts" Just follow the money.
people won't be flying in a spacex star ship before 2030 if at all.
Hey Jordan, or anybody, really, will NASA require the new spacesuit for Artemis 2? Or will they just use current EVA suits?
good question, I'd like to know too, I would guess no? but I'd like to know
Last time I checked on NASA official website, NASA has not put out an official statement of Artemis 2 being in 2025 even the report can be updated to newer revisions in the future. I think its safety that is going to be important as Space travel beyond LEO, the astronauts will be exposed to all sorts of cosmic radiation that can be dangerous. So NASA is trying to be cautious in their schedule and all plus with the Mobile launch tower and the new one that is being built. Its like what Nelson said "Space is hard" and it is. I trust NASA with their abilities and their contractors. I think they are doing a wonderful job, plus space hardware takes time to develop.
In the 1960s NASA had a massive budget and it was a national security pride of being able to send a person to the moon and returning safely to the earth. But in modern times NASA is doing what it can do with the national budget they get every year. But still I have faith in NASA and going to be joining them soon.
The reason is that humans cannot survive the radiations beyond low Earth orbit. Period. The Apollo missions (those that did happen) were unmanned. They are delaying the date for Artemis II while they find a reason to cancel it sine die.
Do they have the money to go sooner? Are they spreading out the payments?
The money is irrelevant. 99% of the rocket is paid for and has nothing to do with the delay.
Apollo missions were faster because the moon was about 2 feet closer to the earth lmfao.
True statement.
Really stretching that gravy train.
Thank you angry astronaut for showing this video. This is the reason why we're usability is important aspect for spaceflight . What are they doing at the facility for this to take this long to get back to the Moon ? What is the manufacturing speed to building the SLS rocket ? What are the dollars being spent on the SLS rocket ? There are many different questions to ask as to why it's being delayed until 2025 . This might have some form of ramifications for funding from Congress if this continues to be delayed this long . And I believe angry may be right if this continues any further and they might cut the Artemis program very quickly, if you're not a supporter of reusability this is detrimental if you continue to delay the project further . Thank you for sharing this video shout out from Canada
They don't have enough parts purchased to make a second set of electronics...
The answer is: "Job Security" for contractor personnel.
A effort needs to be made to vote out the politicians who keep SLS alive. A "To the future PAC."
None of this surprises me. SLS represents everything wrong with old space.
With the most recent flyby images of the prior Moon landings having about the same resolution as Bigfoot images, what makes you think we will have any more success than the capture of Bigfoot?
That's the funniest thing I've ever heard a flatearther say. You guys are so wonderfully insane. Lol
@@TheAngryAstronaut You are, no doubt, a globalist. I was born before you and watched the "Moon Landing" as a senior in high school. I've waited for many years, patiently, for people to colonize the Moon only to hear excuse after excuse. When I began to doubt if we ever really went to the Moon in 1969, I got noise from dickheads like yourself being defensive but who never have showed the world any good evidence of that landing site. Along the way, all the data from that program was "lost." Nasa then proceeded to tell us that we were not able to go back to the Moon because of radiation, in the well-known, Van Allen Belt. All I've heard for more than 50 years is excuses. Anyone doubting the current evidence is treated with contempt and infantile name-calling much like anyone doubting the so-called crisis of climate change. It would not surprise me if the word "DENIER" becomes your word of choice for any contrary opinion. So "Angry Astronaut" may now be substituted with a suitable pronoun like "Dickhead."
Sounds about right. To accomplish a crewed moon landing, the contractor NASA selected for the lunar lander has to launch its heavy lift vehicle to LEO multiple times, demonstrate on orbit refueling, build a tanker fleet, build two Lunar landers, (one for an uncrewed demonstration mission, one for the actual crewed landing). The uncrewed mission will be a bare basics lander and does not have to launch off of the lunar surface. The second one obviously will have to launch off the lunar surface and preform a lunar orbit rendezvous. So yeah, Artemis 2 in 2025 sounds about right because lunar lander hardware probably won't be ready until 2028-2029.
The first HLS should have to relaunch even if it is then just relanded somewhere else (ideally deploying crawlers at each site).
For some reason, I thought Artemis Ii was going to orbit the moon.
Guess not.
So which Artemis is supposed to lead to a lunar landing? Artemis XIII?
No. Artemis 2 will orbit the Moon. That's why I compared it to Apollo 13.
Sounds like another angry muskrat.
Got a contract to change over on top of all the other issues.
Artemis 2: late 2033!
Ok, even you know that's too long.
its a real shame those space shuttle launch towers werent kept and overhauled for the current program
a space program truly is as reliable as its weakest link
They only have engines for 4 sls launches. They need to stretch the timeline to justify the price tag. Shuttle employees need to stay at NASA, not spacex according to congress.
They need time to fix the launch mount. They just don't want to say anything.
By then, Starship should be flying. If they don't want to launch people on it without an LES, Let Dream Chaser or Crew Dragon deliver the crew. The moment Starship flies, this Senate pork rocket topped with a retro spam can will be obsolete
Two years to refurbish . . . avionics? What, did the core memory become unwound and grandma needs to knit it back together? Of all things, why does avionics take so long?
The real reason is the possible joy rides on those yachts. N.A.S.A.'s management loves joy rides.
If they plan to test the components to destruction they can not reuse them. So at a minamum they would have to rebuild those components.
They know it is a deadend. Waiting for Starship to stepup.
What do you think of the Moon pictures from Artemis? Are they of the quality and resolution you expected?
I was not impressed. Reporters at the news conference, with immensely more knowledge of mission than myself, asked some good questions only to get evasive dodgy non answers. When they asked about better imagery to come, the 3 NASA guys said any future public releases would first be reviewed for content (censored?) before release. What are they looking at on the moon that needs to be censored? Go ahead, call me a conspiracy theory kook and demand to see my evidence, then tell me it doesn’t prove anything. It’s not my job to prove anything. If I waited for proof of everything before acting I’d be living in a tent on the sidewalk.
@@spacedude30001 We will see if they deliver.
@@Bitterrootbackroads Look, back during Apollo, the last 3 flights, the "J" missions, had a quarter of their service modules taken up by a package of sensors and film cameras called the SIM bay. Those SIM bays took the highest-rez photos of the Moon since the Ranger and Surveyor programs started, especially of the far side. When the photos were released to the public and published in LIFE magazine, there were areas of the far side redacted, blacked out.
Why?
@@dalethelander3781 there were areas of the far side redacted, blacked out. Why?
Not every photo is clear enough for use. Not all areas were photographed. The film ran out and had to change. Quality control of the film itself. Lots of non conspiracy theory explanations.
Polaris Station
A mission profile for the first crewed Starship flight, would test long duration habitability of the Starship System. Polaris Station would launch uncrewed and multiple Crew Dragons would dock with it to disembark the typical complement of early Mars missions. The mission would run for a minimal of 6 months and possibly more to simulate the three year Mars mission cycle. Polaris Station would not be resupplied unless the mission were declared a failure. In which case Cargo Starships would transport refit equipment and supplies to restart the mission. After successful completion of the mission the upgraded and stress tested Polaris Station would serve as a destination for space tourist who wanted to experience the Mars transit experience. Perhaps these tourist would later sign on as the first permanent settlers of Mars.
This is how I would do it. Hell we could boast it out to the moon and use it for the gateway station.
1. NASA isn't concerned because it's a jobs program for Congress.
2. If they were smart they'd adopt the SpaceX Spacesuit since they'll need it post SLS Launch anyway as it'll Starship taking down to the moon.
SpaceX flight suit you mean?
I thought SpaceX is running out of time for Artemis. But it seems they have plenty since NASA being slow in development
SpaceX has a better chance of getting astronauts to the moon and they have a TON of development to get there.
I thought to myself why when they said next launch 2024 I was like what the heck