[somenameforme]

We're taking Boeing's ability to screw things up, NASA's extreme risk aversion, and then mixing them up together in a blender that includes untested technology, the first humans out of low orbit in more than half a century, and NASA's desire to make a huge spectacle out of it all - including identity politics.

IMO there's a high probability that a human landing via Artemis ultimately never happens. This isn't the NASA of the 60s that's happy to send a few guys up to the Moon while simultaneously also already having a memorial speech commemorating their deaths written and on standby. They're going to want to be near to 100% assured that the mission will be safely executed, and I simply don't think you can get anywhere near to that in practice.

For the exact same reasons, it's also unlikely that Artemis 2 will go ahead. And that launch is scheduled for as early as the end of next year. So it should be an early indicator of things to come, or not to come.

[dotancohen]

As a huge fan of the Apollo program for decades, and the Artemis program now, it pained me to upvote your comment. But you are 100% correct on every point you mention.

[Retric]

It’s wildly pessimistic, Artemis 1 went just fine and Artemis 2 is basically the same except with people on board able to look at the moon. Having people flying around in space is something we've done constantly since the first moon landing and adding a big rocket and fuel to get to the moon isn't a huge leap.

Now 3 when they need to land is a bigger risk. It running into issues is slightly more believable, they could abort the landing while still flying etc.

[somenameforme]

You can see a list of missions to the ISS here. [1] The US stopped launching people to space from 2011 to 2020, relying entirely on Russia during that window. As of 2020 SpaceX entered the game and has started regularly sending people up, but the Artemis program's decision to inject Boeing into it was exclusively due to corruption/'influence.' They weren't competitive on qualification, capability, or price - but were granted a key role anyhow. Notably Boeing was also arbitrarily granted a contract to send people to the ISS under the same 'influence', and they were supposed to be the first private company to do so, more than 5 years ago now. That still hasn't happened.

And so the Artemis program now relies completely on NASA's judgement of Boeing's ability to send people to space on 'untested' (they're reusing Space Shuttle era tech and hardware but on an entirely new vessel) technology which has not only run many years and tens of billions of dollars over budget, but has seen a never-ending series of technical issues above and beyond what's expected during normal developmental processes.

Basically the big factor is Boeing here. If we contracted everything to SpaceX we'd probably stand a fair chance of putting man on the moon, again - but NASA's risk aversion would still be a major issue. But that's not the case. Now we have an incompetent company paired alongside an organization that will demand superhuman levels of assurances for the sort of spectacle they plan to make of it all, especially after Christa McAuliffe. It's not a great mix for the odds of anything actually going anywhere.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflights_to_...

[Retric]

They have already successfully carried out a mission so they are going somewhere.

SpaceX’s track record on new systems isn’t great. Musk bet the company a few times which as a disinterested 3rd seems fine when it succeeds, but makes partners really nervous.

NASA wants multiple capable partners to avoid getting screwed over because congress won’t let them build it themselves.

[somenameforme]

Boeing launched an uncrewed SLS exactly once in 2022. It was planned for 2016, and then delayed 26 different times over 6 years. And uncrewed launches are held to much lower standards and requirements than crewed. You don't go from that to 'definitely safe enough for a human' (let alone with NASA's risk aversion) on anything like a reasonably short timescale.

Initially there was never any plan for multiple launch providers - commercial crew called for a single winner. It was only after it became clear that the winner was not going to be Boeing (kudos to NASA) that the rules were changed to allow Boeing to also win (and receive vastly more money than SpaceX as well). The whole stuff about redundancy was just after-the-fact messaging to cover-up what's been ongoing and overt corruption.

SpaceX have never 'bet the company' except in the very earliest days of SpaceX when they were a startup with basically no capital. Since then, they've not only constantly iterated on the Falcon 9 but also designed/developed the Falcon Heavy, and now the Starship. And I see little to nothing to critique about their execution. I suppose the timeliness could have been better, but I think it's forgivable given that these were all completely revolutionary developments.

[Retric]

Those SLS delays where from everything including a tornado and funding issues not just Boeing.

Boeing built the Lunar Orbiters, they have been doing this stuff for a long time and have plenty of success. On day one it wasn't particularly obvious which was the right choice, and SpaceX's entry had some serious flaws. Remember the crane/elevator to lower astronauts? That was just needlessly complex and begging to get people killed, they where serious about using it.

> SpaceX have never 'bet the company' except in the very earliest days of SpaceX

Look at there financial history, they are still making big bets that may or may not pay off. Sustaining losses for years is a fine strategy when money is loose but it's risky for someone looking to hand them billions.