#4613931 - 11/17/22 05:58 AM
Artemis I Launch
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
Arthonon
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
California
|
I know some have strong feelings about NASA and government spending on this rocket, but I am still a little surprised there wasn't already a thread about this. So far, it has been a successful mission, with the launch working as planned, and as far as I know, all other aspects as well. Again, I know that some feel it's a waste of money, and there's no doubt that it's over budget and has issues, but I still find it interesting to watch and can't help but hope that it's successful. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...e-for-moon-after-epic-launch/ar-AA14aJxp
|
|
#4613936 - 11/17/22 07:54 AM
Re: Artemis I Launch
[Re: Arthonon]
|
Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 6,529
NoFlyBoy
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 6,529
|
|
|
#4613939 - 11/17/22 10:58 AM
Re: Artemis I Launch
[Re: Arthonon]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
SC
|
UNSUSTAINABLE. NASA does not deny the “over $2 billion” cost of a single SLS launch What the White House cost estimate did not include, however, was development costs. Since 2011, Congress has appropriated approximately $2 billion per year for the "development" of the SLS rocket (this does not include hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually on ground systems "development" for the rocket at Kennedy Space Center). If these costs are amortized over 10 launches of the SLS vehicle during the 2020, the per-flight cost would be approximately $4 billion per flight.
Moreover, this is just for the SLS rocket's core stage, side-mounted boosters, and a basic upper stage. Developing and adding the Exploration Upper Stage will add hundreds of millions of more dollars. Then there is the cost of the Orion spacecraft, which NASA recently valued at approximately $750 million for the first six missions.
Adding all of this up, the true cost of a Space Launch System mission with Orion on top in the 2020s, including the rocket's development but excluding ground systems and Orion development costs, appears to be in the ballpark of $5 billion per flight. Let's hope the astronauts are served more than just pretzels after takeoff. Different philosophies: -“Our spacecraft is the most complex machine in the world!” - NASA -“The best part is no part.” - SpaceX Meanwhile SpaceX Starship / Superheavy is intended as a fully reusable system. It will launch 100 tons to low earth orbit for an estimated $10 million in operating costs. $10 million for Starship vs $5 billion for SLS. Even if the Starship estimate is off by an order of magnitude that would mean $100 million vs $5 billion, even TWO orders of magnitude: $1 billion vs $5 billion. Actually the cost for an entire Starship / Superheavy booster combo is less than a billion dollars, so even if it were to be operated as a single use, throw away vehicle (like SLS) it would cost less than 20% as much as SLS. And in a throw away mode it's payload to low earth orbit would be much higher than "only" 100 tons. The US taxpayer would have been better served if Artemis I had exploded on ascent and the entire ridiculous money pit program canceled as a result.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4613964 - 11/17/22 04:30 PM
Re: Artemis I Launch
[Re: Arthonon]
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,612
KRT_Bong
It's KRT not Kurt
|
It's KRT not Kurt
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,612
Sarasota, Florida
|
Watched it from my backyard, and for a very long time even well after it started declining over the horizon. Very cool to see the multiple nozzles even that far away, most impressive.
Windows 10 Pro Gigabyte 970A DS3P FX AMD FX6300 Vishera 3.5 Ghz ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 970 Overclocked 4 GB DDR5 16Gb Patriot Viper 3 RAM DDR3 1866Mhz Onikuma Gaming Headset (has annoying blue lights I don't use)
|
|
#4613972 - 11/17/22 04:50 PM
Re: Artemis I Launch
[Re: F4UDash4]
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,569
Mr_Blastman
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,569
Atlanta, GA
|
This is what they get for partnering with Boeing, a contractor plagued corporate mess, instead of a streamlined operation such as Space X or Blue Origin. Nice rocket launch, but I Must say the time I saw Elon launch the Falcon Heavy and the boosters returned to Earth, landing simultaneously on the pad, was far more impressive. That knocked our socks off, and set the tone for the future. This felt like looking back into the past.
|
|
#4613973 - 11/17/22 04:58 PM
Re: Artemis I Launch
[Re: Mr_Blastman]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
SC
|
....but I Must say the time I saw Elon launch the Falcon Heavy and the boosters returned to Earth, landing simultaneously on the pad, was far more impressive.
Reusable rockets are the future. A disposable rocket in 2022 is like a horse and buggy in the age of the automobile. China knows: China scraps expendable Long March 9 rocket plan in favor of reusable version
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4613980 - 11/17/22 05:44 PM
Re: Artemis I Launch
[Re: F4UDash4]
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 17,301
Nixer
Scaliwag and Survivor
|
Scaliwag and Survivor
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 17,301
Living with the Trees
|
UNSUSTAINABLE.
Adding all of this up, the true cost of a Space Launch System mission with Orion on top in the 2020s, including the rocket's development but excluding ground systems and Orion development costs, appears to be in the ballpark of $5 billion per flight.
Different philosophies:
-“Our spacecraft is the most complex machine in the world!” - NASA
-“The best part is no part.” - SpaceX
Meanwhile SpaceX Starship / Superheavy is intended as a fully reusable system. It will launch 100 tons to low earth orbit for an estimated $10 million in operating costs. $10 million for Starship vs $5 billion for SLS. Even if the Starship estimate is off by an order of magnitude that would mean $100 million vs $5 billion, even TWO orders of magnitude: $1 billion vs $5 billion. Actually the cost for an entire Starship / Superheavy booster combo is less than a billion dollars, so even if it were to be operated as a single use, throw away vehicle (like SLS) it would cost less than 20% as much as SLS. And in a throw away mode it's payload to low earth orbit would be much higher than "only" 100 tons.
The US taxpayer would have been better served if Artemis I had exploded on ascent and the entire ridiculous money pit program canceled as a result.
edited for brevity and emphasisI have to wonder how much of that NASA/Boeing $5 billion per flight. has been given out as bonuses for being years late and billions over budget. Lot's I'd wager. At least they got it off the ground and headed to the moon finally, especially after leaving it outside in a Hurricane.
Last edited by Nixer; 11/17/22 05:46 PM. Reason: More stuff
Censored
Look for me on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook or Tic Toc...or anywhere you may frequent, besides SimHq, on the Global Scam Net. Aka, the internet. I am not there, never have been or ever will be, but the fruitless search may be more gratifying then the "content" you might otherwise be exposed to.
"There's a sucker born every minute." Phineas Taylor Barnum
|
|
#4613983 - 11/17/22 06:00 PM
Re: Artemis I Launch
[Re: Nixer]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
SC
|
I have to wonder how much of that NASA/Boeing $5 billion per flight. has been given out as bonuses for being years late and billions over budget. Lot's I'd wager.
There was an article I saw a while back that put "overhead costs" for the SLS program at over 70%.
Last edited by F4UDash4; 11/18/22 12:57 PM.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4614095 - 11/18/22 01:09 PM
Re: Artemis I Launch
[Re: Arthonon]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
SC
|
Some facts not mentioned in most news coverage of this launch:
The solid rocket boosters on SLS are not recovered as they were on the Space Shuttle, they fall into the ocean.
The engines on this SLS were from the Shuttle program, and all had flown many times before. This time they too sank to the ocean floor.
There are only a relative handful of these old Space Shuttle engines lying around that could be used for SLS, when they are used up new built but modified "cheaper" engines (RS-25E) are being built. Cheaper being a relative term as the new engines cost $146 million. EACH. For comparison the new reusable Raptor engine that SpaceX is building (at a rate of roughly one engine PER DAY) costs less than ONE PERCENT as much as the RS-25E engine. Not a typo, 1%. In fact SpaceX is claiming a cost per Raptor of $250,000. That comes to 0.17%. In other words for the cost of one new SLS engine you could pay for 584 Raptors, or approximately TWO YEARS worth of Raptor production.
Is anyone catching on yet to just how big of a stupid boondoggle SLS is yet?
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4614096 - 11/18/22 01:33 PM
Re: Artemis I Launch
[Re: Arthonon]
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,829
mikew
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,829
UK
|
Well, it's pretty stupid from a rocketry point of view. It's a work of political genious in that it's kept those ex-Space Shuttle jobs in all 50 states going for the last 12 years. Space projects without any geopolitical reasons tend to be presidential vanity projects, but this was set up in such a way that even the incoming administration in 2016 couldn't cancel it. ...and the icing on the cake is that it actually worked...and in spectacular fashion
|
|
|
CD WOFF
by Britisheh. 03/28/24 08:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|