NASA's future would be much brighter if its programs had a reasonable chance of leading to something worthwhile. Nothing based on SLS will ever be worthwhile.
If the SLS indeed manages to put people back on the moon in the next 2-3 years, that could inspire a permanent moon presence, and that would be huge for development of future technology.
Well, Artemis 2 is scheduled for May 2024. It is to take crew on a lunar flyby, i.e. not even entering lunar orbit, which in my view makes it a lot less inspiring than Apollo 8.
Artemis 3 is to put people on the moon, but is currently "no earlier than 2025" with many missing pieces in the critical path. The spacesuits themselves are no earlier than April 2025, and while they loosened the Gateway requirement, it still needs a spacecraft to get from Orion to the moon and back. NASA selected Starship. If SpaceX can put Starship on the moon, what are the odds that Artemis 3 will be its first crewed trip?
I don't think Artemis 3 has any chance of being the catalyst you describe.
I don’t think the two scenarios are really comparable.
I mean, their engines are still melting which means they fundamentally don't have the lift capability they claim. I'm sure they could get them to work if they just ran them cooler, but cooler engines means less thrust and that changes everything about a rocket's capability.
And that's what makes it exactly like the self-driving car problem in my mind -- they're stuck at an impasse that might not really have a viable solution all while Musk is saying they'll be delivering any day now. You just can't trust a thing he says about when and how much they'll deliver.
The initial design has special high up landing engines btw, this solves the debris issue.
And in terms of the stability, Starship has enough mass-fraction to add whatever kind of legs on that thing they want. NASA didn't even list that as a minor issue in the report.
But certainly you're right about the risk of damage on landing.
If people land on the moon. Starship will be the impressive inspirational thing, not SLS.
And Starship is what you need to have a permanent moon base. Its a simple fact that there is not enough budget for a moon base, as long as NASA is forced into SLS. Do the math and you will see.
There is a reason literally everything other then Orion is already taken away from SLS. Both science missions and all other moon missions and landers are no longer going to use SLS.
SLS is literally just there to put Orion into moon orbit. That's it. And that could be achieved other ways as well.
SLS is just a crouch that NASA is forced to use. And on the pictures on television, when Astronauts get out on to the moon, it will be a large SpaceX rocket.
Landing on the moon is only of value if it leads to things additional that are of value. But this indirect benefit requires that landing on the moon be cheap enough and easy enough that the additional activities are practical. I don't think anything needing SLS qualifies.
The confusion of symbol with substance has bedeviled the space program since its inception. It's a kind of cargo cult thinking. To do worthwhile things on the moon requires being able to get to the moon in a practical and economical way. I'm not sure even Starship qualifies, to be honest, but it may.
The SLS will (most likely) put people on the moon as part of a later Artemis mission.
And as for later versions of SLS after that… I highly doubt they will ever fly, because the insanity of the cost and they non-reusability will become too glaringly obvious to everyone.
The "completely unrelated rocket" will not be certified to launch Humans in time. The modified Starship that is used as a lander will undergo some certification, but ferrying Humans from lunar surface to lunar orbit is a lot less difficult and risky than blasting off of Earth.
The only thing SLS currently adds to the moon mission is that it allows the switchover between capsule and Starship to happen in lunar orbit instead of LEO. This is not very valuable.
SLS+Orion is ready to fly now, or at least almost.
Citation needed.
NASA specifically called out in their report that SpaceX had done a huge amount of work on refueling already and they were impressed with the amount of detail.
NASA has also handed out contracts to study fluid dynamics of cryo and SpaceX got a contract to study that.
This is not some mystical thing. Refuling in orbit has been done for 50 years. Yes, its now cryo fluids but pumping cryo around in orbit is already required for upper stages, so its not really even that new or different.
And btw, refueling Starship is a required part of Artemis if you want to transition crew in earth or lunar orbit.
One small exception is that transfer of people in Artemis III will be from Orion to Starship instead of from Crew Dragon to Starship.
After Artemis IV the plan is to transfer people from Orion to Lunar Gateway to Starship.
Not 100% sure but I think metal has not yet been bend on Lunar Gateway.
This didn’t age well.
Yeah, Starship hasn’t stopped blowing up. What it has flown successfully is a small atmospheric hop, with a pretty pared down version. The first stage hasn’t even successfully static fired yet. And yet, everyone is falling over themselves to say various versions of “SLS is obsolete because starship”. SpaceX has a great track record in developing Falcon 9, its reusability, and Dragon. But Starship is order of magnitude more complicated, optimistically it will not fly for several years.
I remember in 2017 when people said Falcon Heavy is not real, SLS is and all this bullshit.
SLS has no logical justification, even if either Falcon Heavy nor Starship existed. It just doesn't make sense if you actually think threw the problem.
NASA knew this, and didn't want (outside of Johnson) but were forced to do it.
> But Starship is order of magnitude more complicated, optimistically it will not fly for several years.
That quite the claim.
I would bet you 10k$ that Starship will reach orbit 5 times before SLS reaches Orbit twice? Interested?