America's ambitious Artemis III likely to miss 2025 Moon landing date, auditors sigh Artemis III, the mission intended to put American boots back on the Moon, is unlikely to meet its 2025 launch schedule, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported on Thursday. According to the watchdog, problems with both SpaceX's Starship Human Landing System – the vehicle chosen to deliver US astronauts to the …
"And now over a year after that flight still has not managed to do a flight with astronauts?"
There's a huge question mark when it comes to whether hardware will be ready and whose hardware will wind up making the trip(s). Until that's sorted, why would there be any need to send astronauts on a sightseeing trip? There will need to be extensive training for everybody involved as this is all brand new.
No-one with a clue believed Artemis III would launch in 2025 (or 2024 for that matter). The difficult bit is guessing what will provide the longest delay: Starship HLS, the space suits, SLS or Orion. All of them will be late.
If you want to call something out, how about the bravery of the Artemis II crew. They will fly an Orion around the Moon with a life support system that has never been to Space. Orion has spent so much time waiting for SLS that some components died of old age. The Orion for Artemis I launched with a dead power supply because it would have taken months to dismantle the Orion to install a replacement. The SLS sat on the launch pad until the last minute hoping the hurricane would turn aside because SLS and its mobile launch platform are heavy enough to damage the crawler/transporter. There was a real risk that it would break down before completing the return journey and delay SLS and Orion even further beyond their use-by dates. The Artemis II SRB's have been poured so the clock is ticking on them already even though it was known at the time that the corresponding Orion would be late.
SpaceX are called out regularly over Artemis to cover delays from SLS. The big difference is HLS is a firm fixed price contract: SpaceX pick up the bill for any RUDs and do not get paid at all until achieving a milestone. SLS is cost plus. The project is actively delayed to increase the value of the contract. One SLS launch (ignoring R&D and GSE) costs more than 3 complete HLS missions including R&D and ground support equipment.
[According to the article: "SpaceX, run by the stable genius Elon Musk.." Musk is too busy running Twitter into bankruptcy to do much damage at SpaceX.]
One's been in development for a few years, using entirely new designs and was EXPECTED to blow up because they wanted data on the bits of flight before it would probably blow up. They got the data they wanted. They'd have had 4 or 5 flights if they didn't gamble (and lose) on the launch mount being able to withstand the full thrust long enough for the first launch of the full stack and if the FAA and environmental agencies hadn't taken so long to give the green light. AFAIK they've got the flight hardware basically ready to go for launches 3, 4 and 5, 6 is over 80% and 7, 8 and 9 are being built. Expect to see atleast 2 or 3 more of them explode before one starship successfully makes a return (before exploding on attempted landing), about 20 more kabooms as they perfect the landing and over 20 or 30 boosters going kaboom (first in flight, then during a water ditching, then just off-shore and finally maybe one or two as they perfect the "catch the block of flats falling from the skies on a pillar of fire with a giant mechanical claw" game. before they successfully manage to catch one. But they can work on HLS as soon as they can get a starship to orbit, independent of trying to land them and independent of perfecting booster landing
The other is a project that's been around in one form or another since before the spaceshuttle retired, based mostly on existing and tested hardware and has taken decades to fly, after which it needs several years to get ready for another launch (and throwing away extremely expensive engines and boosters with every launch). Yeah, good comparison.
What happened, is that both programs do believe in testing, and both have approaches that are at least theoretically valid. One of them tests on-ground, the other in a more high-fidelity simulator ie launching. Witnessing the failure of a couple of flight-tests is somewhat irrelevant to the quality of the final product; the ground tests might fail but you don’t necessarily watch those. In fact, only a week ago, the ground hot-fire test of Ariane 6 failed in an analogous way to the flight-test of Starship. Both of them, the thrust stopped before the nominal time for $Reasons. Starship was destroyed for range-safety, Ariane test was declared a success. But neither of the payloads would have reached orbit. And, we’ll find out more later, but the Starship test probably failed due to complex sloshing not well-simulated in a hot fire test. This all tells us precisely nothing about the *final quality* merits of the two approaches.
The claim is that the flight testing approach is much faster to iterate and cheaper in practice. Starship will iterate by January, while Ariane 6 won’t iterate until June/July. That’s a 3x speed advantage. It sounds plausible that running tests purely on-ground, should be faster and cheaper because you don’t blow up the launchpad, but it turns out not really true.
The idea that purely on-ground design and testing produces a higher *final quality engineering output* is simply a non sequitur. For all I know, Starship might end up being lower quality. Or not. But if it is, that’s a product of inspection procedures and manufacturing process control.
It's incredible that SpaceX have repeatedly stated that the rockets are expected to fail but there are still whiners not paying attention.
Having said that, Space Shuttle flew real crewed missions 112 times before a flaw was discovered. Because something didn't fail in flight is no guarantee that it just manage to scrape through the mission, especially if it's not recovered and analysed. Shows that even ground based proving and flight testing together can't avoid the sudden massive expansion of propellant.
Several Concordes flew with people on board for 31 years before a major weakness was exposed.
Making big things travel at very high speeds using Newtons 3rd law and chucking hot gas out the back is always going to have risk.
Some of the whiners are journalists who know better. Printing falsehoods and getting corrected generates more ad impressions than getting it right first time. It is hardly surprising that people without a strong interest in rockets get misinformed. How else do you think SLS has escaped tax payer fury for so long?
Several Concordes flew with people on board for 31 years before a major weakness was exposed
My understanding of the risk of damage to the wings from tyres shredding after hitting runway debris on Concorde was identified shortly after it went into service and the manufacturers developed a guard to retrofit onto the main undercarriage to deflect debris away from the wings. It wasn't mandatory to install, but British Airways installed them anyway. Air France didn't.
They are just beginning to test the Starship. You might want to check Falcon 9's and Falcon Heavy's record to see the end product after testing (hopefully). I do agree with the article that the 2025 date will not happen. There is still a lot of testing that needs to be done on all the hardware by both parties.
I would believe the "It's meant to do that, they're gathering data!" excuses a little bit more if SpaceX wasn't undertaking significant redesigns between flights... not small adjustments that would imply they're removing failure modes, but complete changes to the whole thing. They've yet to get anywhere near a "final design", and how many flights should that undertake before anyone is willing to trust it with serious cargo or human lives?
I've no doubt they will get there eventually - for all the billions of dollars and hundreds of highly skilled engineers working on it, you'd be shocked if they didn't - but any claims that this is cheaper or more efficient that the other options have to be taken with a massive pinch of salt. This has become a "too big to fail" project, so Elon's famously poor project planning and time estimates are going to be indulged simply because everyone involved cannot afford to loose face at this point.
..at which point we get finger pointing and "but look what the other guys are doing".. sure. Just because the other guys are incompetent doesn't make your mess any better, does it? This is not a new frontier of space exploration, it's the same old indulgent process of throwing cash at the person who makes the most noise. Except in previous programmes we all got some benefit and non-stick frying pans, whereas this time the only person benefitting from the US Government budgetary excess is Musk.
but any claims that this is cheaper or more efficient that the other options have to be taken with a massive pinch of salt.
Damn right - Each SpaceX launch cost around $1B and went bang nicely, the single SLS cost about $2B and seemed to work so how many more $1B fireworks are SpaceX going to light the blue touchpaper on before they match the single SLS flight? And just how is it cheaper in the long run?
Seems to be a lot of NASA bashing here which is odd because this forum is generally full of praise for them when it comes to space telescopes, planetary exploration with rovers and the chopper on Mars as well as the deep space stuff whizzing off in various directions.
Have you got evidence for those numbers?
An SLS launch for $2B is about right, but it is a one trick pony that always includes a service module and an Orion taking the cost over $4B. Adding up R&D, GSE and three Artemis launches comes to $41B (warning: prices in a cost plus contract will grow to match any possible budget).
NASA are getting three Starship HLS's (and the required number of RUDs, depots, tanker launches, ...) for $3B (firm fix price contract, payments on achieving milestones). The only way to get a single Starship launch up to $1B is to include complete project costs: R&D, GSE, test equipment, factories, ...
SpaceX can currently churn out about 7 complete Starships with boosters per year. Boeing might be able to do ½ an SLS per year. SpaceX's huge factories, test sites and launch complex did not blow up. Including them in a cost comparison to $2B SLS is comparing grapes to water melons. Bump an SLS launch to $13B if you want to get closer.
You’re assuming the “other guys” are incompetent, whereas actually they are decent engineers following a process that just isn’t going to get them where they need to be. Let me remind you of the history of Ariane 5, because it was one of the industry’s *successful* workhorses. Perhaps you have forgotten how it really went at the start.
Development Approved Nov ‘87; First test flight June ‘96, failed (software problem); second test Oct ‘97 failed (nozzle problem); third test Oct ‘98 (successful); first commercial Oct ‘99 (success).
Transpose that to Ariane 6: Development Approved Nov ‘16 ; first test flight target July 2024, implied first commercial October 2027!! History suggests three test flights will be required, taking them about a year to iterate, and the first two statistically will fail. But the Ariane 6 schedule assumes zero flight failures, which is wildly unrealistic.
Two observations: the problem isn’t the failure rate, it’s the cycle-time. Needs to be 2-3 months, not a year, or even the 9 months that A6 is guessing. That’s a culture and bureaucracy problem, not a rocket science problem. If OldSpace solved that, there wouldn’t really be very much difference between the development models. Mercury/Apollo ran loads of flight tests, many of which exploded, and they managed a 3-month cycle time.
Secondly: does anybody seriously believe, that the *commercial* market they are targeting will still be interested in 2026/2027? Because that’s the most likely outcome of all of this. The institutional one will, the commercial one not. It’s not 1999 any more. The world launcher market just isn’t going to hang around for this way of doing things like it did last time
No deflection. The first launch was stacked and waiting for clearance for months. The second launch was waiting on results of investigations into the first. The next launch will be waiting on reports on the 2nd.
Given that a few more Starship stacks are likely to explode before they get it right, then the NASA deadline will almost certainly be pushed back due to paperwork.
Given that a few more Starship stacks are likely to explode before they get it right
is there a natural law of physics that says that they will indeed get it right someday ? There was a joke that said that if you fail you progress, thus the more you fail the closer you get to success. But it was a joke.
The N1 Soviet rocket, which was similar to Starship, failed 4 times before they gave up.
No guarantees, but give that the Falcon 9 is the most reliable launcher in the world today (and also the only reusable one), I would bet on them succeeding.
If Musk stays away burning Xwitter to the ground and leaves SpaceX to Gwynne Shotwell and the other adults in the room, they will probably succeed more quickly.
"The first launch was stacked and waiting for clearance for months. "
Elon spends an inordinate amount of time not going through proper channels. Boca Chica was never approved for Starship testing and flights and sits in the midst of 4 sensitive nature preserves. The Army Corp of Engineers had to close out an application for a flame trench when SpaceX failed to communicate with them at all and SX has no permission to use their "not a flame trench" rocket bidet. There are also mandatory requirements for the government agencies to post notices and give time for public response. This sort of thing is no secret which is why it's a good idea to work closely with the regulators to make sure you understand the timelines and when you need to have studies completed and documents submitted for review.
Why do you assume that people commenting or voting are supporters of Musk? I think that most people on here have realised what an utter bell end he is as a man. My opinion of him took a sharp downturn with his comments on Vernon Unsworth and has only gotten worse since. I blocked him on Xwitter as I couldn't stomach the bullshit he was spewing.
However, I can separate the success of SpaceX the company from Musk the man. Falcon 9 is the most reliable and successful launcher on the market today. They have shown that their iterative testing model works, so I have reasonable confidence that they will get Starship to work as well.
Without Falcon 9, they wouldn't have been able to build Starlink at the rapid pace they did. This has been a game changer for internet access for our remote clients here in Northern Australia.
I put their success probably more down to Gwynne Shotwell than Musk. Hopefully he will stay away and keep burning Xwitter to the ground, leaving SpaceX to the grown ups.
I would also like other space companies to be able to be as successful as SpaceX. Competition will drive the cost for access to space down more than SpaceX has achieved now by pulling the pants down on ULA and other launch companies. However, at the moment, nobody can do what the Falcon 9 can do at the cost it can do it.
So to summarise, while Musk is a complete dick, SpaceX has done great things to provide lower cost access to Space as well as a decent internet service for remote communities.
In reality:
Lack of FAA staff and resources led to multiple rockets getting scrapped on the ground instead of providing useful data by being launched - and scrapped in the air.
SpaceX has had to delay some improvements to Falcon 9 because the FAA are swamped. I am sure Rocket Lab, ULA, Stoke, and various new-space startups have similar issues that do not get as far as most websites specializing in Spaceflight. If Blue Origin were in any danger of launching something their excellent lobbyists might be able to sort this out.
Not because it is easy, but because it allows us to push funding to defence companies in a bunch of states in a way that would otherwise require us to have a war to justify
Actually going to the moon is sort of irrelevant, it's all about the velocity of the money supply that matters. You could achieve pretty much the same result if the rocket didn't work, so long as nobody found out.
"You could achieve pretty much the same result if the rocket didn't work, so long as nobody found out."
Given the quality of computer generated imagery available these days, how will we ever know? Maybe that's the intention - lots of groundside pantomime, the media can video the launch, the rocket leaves the atmosphere, and after that we're reliant upon official sources.
For LEO, a good amateur telescope will spot a Starship. For the start of a trip to the Moon, amateurs can follow the radio signal and would spot if the trans-lunar injection burn stopped significantly short. Japan, China and India would have no problem tracking radio signals all the way to the Moon. Medium sized observatories should be able to photograph major burns on the way to the Moon. Chandrayaan-2 and Chang'e 2 have photographed Apollo descent stages. They would easy see a Starship.
It would take flat-Earther level obstinacy to ignore the available evidence - so a whole crowd will screaming their lunacy when the time comes.
So to check I've got this right:
- SLS/orion will launch with the astronauts, get to the moon and go into orbit.
- Starship will launch unmanned, but carrying the moon lander.
- It will need to refuel in earth orbit then fly to the moon.
- Rendezvous with Orion, astronauts transfer into it, have their jolly on the moon then launch back to moon orbit.
- Astronauts transfer back to Orion and fly home?
Is that correct? Sounds very complicated! Why can't they just have the moon lander and everything else all in one rocket like Apollo?
The order will be a little different:
After several more RUDs a Starship depot will go to low Earth orbit. The depot will be optimised to reduce propellant boil off and will not have Earth return hardware.
Several Starship tanker flights will fill the depot with propellant. Tankers will have extended propellant tanks and Earth return hardware.
Next up Starship HLS launches and docks with the depot. HLS will be optimised for Lunar descent and ascent but cannot return to Earth.
At a guess, next Starship HLS sets off on a slow but efficient trip to NRHO (near the Moon).
Probably next, SLS gets delayed a few times before launching Orion to meet HLS in NRHO.
Starship HLS does a return trip to the Moon.
Orion returns the astronauts to Earth.
The Orion capsule is the only vehicle available that can get Astronauts back from the Moon. It is such a bloated pig that not even SLS can get it to low lunar orbit. This puts strong performance requirements on HLS. An alternative HLS from Blue Origin (Blue Moon) got funding (grumble grumble). Blue Moon is a more traditional design that leaves its descent stage on the Moon but is too big for SLS and requires New Glenn (which might launch one day).
Orion costs $4B per launch and is the crippling factor preventing a sustained presence on the Moon. A crewed version of Starship capable of sending astronauts from Earth to NRHO and back is possible (requires propellant refill from a depot). Because Starship is intended to be fully re-usable, it has a target launch cost of $10M (price target will probably be nearer $70M). The return payload for Starship based missions will be about 50,000kg. Orion can return 4 astronauts and a few kg - like Apollo.
Orion costs $4B per launch and is the crippling factor preventing a sustained presence on the Moon
I think that the limiting factor is SLS, because it uses Space Shuttle engines which exist in limited numbers, and contrary to the Space Shuttle are used only once. So the NASA has only so many SLS flights available in total (3 to 5 if I'm not mistaken). After that it's over, they can't make more of those engines.
Well, after that it's up to the Chinese to continue. With whoever they deem to be their friends.
I should have written more clearly. The only launch vehicle for Orion is SLS. The only thing SLS will ever launch is Orion. As the two are so strongly linked I give the price of an SLS+Orion launch as $4B whether in the context of SLS or Orion.
The production lines for Space Shuttle Main Engines have been re-opened at enormous expense. There was so much sticker shock at the price the congress funded a giant contract to make SSMEs (RS-25s) cheaper using modern manufacturing techniques. There was so much sticker shock at the price of the contract that congress funded a contract to redesign RS-25s to be cheaper by eliminating re-use. NASA has been required to order enough engines to get to Artemis X. Including refurbishment of old engines and building redesigned new ones these engines average $250M each.
Boeing can only build half an SLS per year. There is no point paying billions to get them to go faster because NASA only has the budget to launch every other year. That launch rate cripples any attempt at a Moon base.
are you sure that hey DID indeed re-open the production lines ?
From what I read, the SLS Program has an inventory of 16 RS-25 flight engines, 2 ground-test engines are somewhere, and a contract to produce 6 (six) new engines is placed to Aerojet Rocketdyne, bringing the maximum Artemis missions to 5
The six new engines will allow for full flight sets of engines through to the fourth flight, with a spare set ready to take over the fourth mission if required. Providing there are no problems during the early lifetime of SLS, the fifth engine set will fly with the fifth mission.
I wouldn't bet my money on the Americans to return to the Moon with that.
"s that correct? Sounds very complicated! Why can't they just have the moon lander and everything else all in one rocket like Apollo?"
Mission creep. This time they need to bring tents, cookstoves, sporting equipment and more comfortable chairs. I would think it would be easier to pre-position all of the gear and go with as simple of a human transport as possible. They might even want to pre-land something by remote control as a back up. I'd also rather see investigation into what looks like caves more than a landing at the south pole. It those black circles are caves that can be sealed up and used to start a base, trips to look for water can be postponed.
Even the science is hard: "how in bloody hell does a rocket propel itself in space since there is no atmosphere to push against ? " was a question asked to me during an anniversary evening last week. Not by a blond beauty though, unfortunately. Where is the Paris icon ?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
