Eric Berger: The oracle who predicted SLS’s launch in 2023 has thoughts about Artemis III
Back in 2017, when NASA was forecasting a 2019 launch date for Artemis 1, an “unbiased industry insider” predicted that the actual date would be “around 2023”. The critics piled on.
Obviously, this person turned out to be correct.
Then in 2020 the same person predicted that SpaceX would win the HLS contract and it might even be sole source. Again, most space industry observes found that unlikely.
And again, that person turned out to be correct.
Now the same individual is predicting that Artemis III, the first crewed moon mission, will not fly in 2025 as NASA plans but instead will be no sooner than 2028.
A lot can happen in the next several years; politically, economically, technologically. You need to read the article to understand the reasoning that supports this speculation:
Such an approach would not only save many billions of dollars by not using SLS, it would also eliminate the need for the very costly Gateway. It’s actually quite brilliant. F9 and Crew Dragon are obviously fully “flight proven”. Starship development for HLS including in-orbit refueling is already ongoing and funded by NASA.
Read the article. Then discuss.
Back in 2017, when NASA was forecasting a 2019 launch date for Artemis 1, an “unbiased industry insider” predicted that the actual date would be “around 2023”. The critics piled on.
Obviously, this person turned out to be correct.
Then in 2020 the same person predicted that SpaceX would win the HLS contract and it might even be sole source. Again, most space industry observes found that unlikely.
And again, that person turned out to be correct.
Now the same individual is predicting that Artemis III, the first crewed moon mission, will not fly in 2025 as NASA plans but instead will be no sooner than 2028.
A lot can happen in the next several years; politically, economically, technologically. You need to read the article to understand the reasoning that supports this speculation:
The safest and lowest-cost means of completing an Artemis mission to the Moon, therefore, may involve four astronauts launching to a fairly high altitude in low-Earth orbit on Crew Dragon and rendezvousing with a fully fueled Starship. The astronauts would then fly to the Moon, land, and come back to rendezvous with Crew Dragon in Earth orbit. They would then splash down on Earth inside Dragon.
This architecture is less risky because it doesn't involve launching on SLS, nor does it require two rendezvous and dockings in lunar orbit, far from Earth. The crew would only spend a couple of more days aboard Starship than they would during the existing Artemis III plan, so Starship life support should be up to the task. If you care about costs, this plan also excludes the $4.1 billion launch cost of Orion and the SLS rocket and substitutes Crew Dragon, which would be on the order of one-twentieth of the cost.
Such an approach would not only save many billions of dollars by not using SLS, it would also eliminate the need for the very costly Gateway. It’s actually quite brilliant. F9 and Crew Dragon are obviously fully “flight proven”. Starship development for HLS including in-orbit refueling is already ongoing and funded by NASA.
Read the article. Then discuss.