SpaceX has set two more Starlink satellite launches. The first is tonight, from the Cape. Liftoff is set for 10:22 pm Eastern, and the usual webcast will be HERE Their second Starlink launch will be from California, now set for Tuesday at 10:40 pm Pacific time.
The major launch, however, is NASA's huge Artemis "back to the moon" rocket, set to go orbit the moon and return. This will be an unmanned flight to test the whole rocket system. It's the first launch of this monster rocket, which has been in development for 11 years. The launch window is from about 8:30 to 10:30 am Eastern on Monday. This will be broadcast on NASA TV and numerous Youtube channels. I'll post more about it tomorrow, but because this is the first launch of a whole new rocket, I would not count on it going on the first day they try. They'll be extra cautious.
The fact is that Artemis is 1970s technology, Dan. It's basically Space Shuttle hardware re-jiggered to fly an Apollo-style capsule. And it only took them 11 years to get it to launch. They never did get a completely flawless propellant loading sequence done, which is why I'm dubious that this launch attempt will go as planned.
The worst aspect is the cost. They originally claimed it would cost only one billion dollars per flight. They now admit that the real cost will be nearly FIVE BILLION dollars for every launch. They'll never be able to afford more than one launch per year, which essentially kills their goal of any kind of permanently manned moon station. And even that only gets them to moon orbit. They have no means to actually land there themselves. They've contracted with companies like SpaceX to build landers. Which brings up the question of "If SpaceX has to fly to the moon with their lander, why does NASA need to fly that unaffordable and totally expendable rocket there too?"
SLS is very expensive, like 2-3 billion per launch. I can't wait for SpaceX's Starship/Superheavy launch. It will be more powerful than the SLS, which is a throwaway rocket. Starship will be fully reusable. They estimate the Starship/Superheavy system will cost about as much as a Falcon Heavy to operate which will be about 20% of what SLS will cost.
SLS was a jobs program under NASA to get all the various senators and representatives to vote for it. Many states involved with making the various components. Proves NASA should buy launch services and not build a launcher. Better for taxpayers money, and money that would have gone to SLS could have bought lunar habitats, rovers, and a ship to Mars.
Hope the moon launch succeeds in the overall mission.
Like OP said better tech basically around.
But we all know unca suga and funding and contract awarding back to politicians districts is always a factor.
Politicians will stand in the way of progress when their are Benjamin's to be made in the good ole graft system... Even more so when stock portfolios are involved.
Which brings up the question of "If SpaceX has to fly to the moon with their lander, why does NASA need to fly that unaffordable and totally expendable rocket there too?"
