Launching a new Rocket is hard and the history of SpaceX is filled with catastrophic explosions, the reason why Nasa has had such few accidents in their history is they don’t take unnecessary risks

got to be honest here, why are nasa still wasting money trying to launch anything?? they have never really been good at it at all. and this sls moon landing by 2025 wtf, spacex is launched 31 rockets last year and plan on 45 this year, sort your shit out nasa, if you cant launch your rocket at least monthly wots the…

I’m still honestly in shock that this is the only launch happening before they strap real people on the top of it - in 2 years. That’s crazy. I would not want to be those astronauts 

That’s one way to take it, sure. A wildly, unrealistically optimistic way. The other way to take it — which is *FAR* more likely — is as a vindication of what is clearly a complete and utter failure (as both a rocket program and a jobs program), thus ensuring a repeat of this same clusterf*** for its replacement.

More a case of letting Boeing touch anything to do with space for pork. Competence is not expected, they get paid cost-plus anyway.

That’s what’s otherwise known as ‘incompetence.’ In this case, gross and deadly incompetence, because it has a body count attached to it.

Assuming ‘nothing will go wrong’ when nothing has gone wrong so far is a foolish but not uncalled for kind of arrogance. But that is *SO* far removed from the entire SLS development, which has been a non-stop procession of things going wrong. If it was possible for it to go wrong, it’s gone wrong. So to roll the…

Simulations are only as good as your assumptions.

Well for later launches the tower they’re currently using, can only support this version of the SLS. The larger versions of the SLS need a larger tower. And the contractor who’s supposed to be building it...is hugely behind schedule...which threatens to put the whole schedule out of whack.

Sure! It’s not like they haven’t had over a decade to identify and troubleshoot these potential problems before now. I mean, that’s what they spent all that time and money ‘simulating’ to do....

No. That a project inundated with delays, failures, and problems experiences yet another set of failures and problems and gets delayed yet again.

SLS is so delayed that it was originally “competing” with Falcon Heavy. Here’s one example of Falcon Heavy eating SLS’s lunch: https://www.universetoday.com/152043/nasa-chooses-falcon-heavy-over-sls-to-launch-europa-clipper-saving-about-2-billion/

They do have experience with syncing a large number of engines, though.  Falcon 9 uses 9, and Falcon Heavy uses 27, although in 3 groups of 9.  It’s rocket science, but once you can get the task down to the point of simply repeating the same task over and over again, you can generally derive from it step by step…

Plus, Boeing is involved, so they probably cut corners on parts to save a buck.

Issue not addressed during dress rehearsal comes back to bite launch in the ass. Shocking.

Like again...I didn’t say that it being delayed today was unexpected, or came out of the blue. That doesn’t mean its because people didn’t do their jobs.

There might not be a successful Artemis 1 test by 2025.

It’s not even 40 years old designs... these are literally old engines.

One of four engines refuses to play ball.

Strange that NASA is having such trouble with these venerable engines, which are essentially more than 40-fucking-year-old designs, and made like 130 launches or thereabouts with the Space Shuttle.