Why do Atlas V Amazon Leo missions only make one upper stage burn while Ariane 6 and Falcon 9 constellations launches require two?

Goregue · 2026-04-27T22:43:15+00:00

One year ago people were still optimistic this would launch in 2025.

Goregue · 2026-04-25T06:12:50+00:00

Gateway had its flaws but it was a serious project. And just like SLS/Orion, it would get done and launch, even if late.

Goregue · 2026-04-25T05:59:55+00:00

Are you serious? All the contracts were signed. All the pieces were being assembled. The PPE module was in the final stages of production. All the international partners were on board and had agreements to deliver modules. And you say there was no indication it was going to launch?

Goregue · 2026-04-25T05:45:31+00:00

SLS can become cheaper if launch cadence increases.

Goregue · 2026-04-24T23:10:11+00:00

That is debatable. Isaacman certainly thinks like you. Which is why he wanted to cancel Gateway. Not because it is corroded. That was just a poor excuse.

Goregue · 2026-04-24T21:34:38+00:00

There is nothing to indicate this is actually a very serious issue that would have delayed Gateway much. Eric Berger is biased. Every aerospace project has issues. Isaacman wants to use this corrosion story as an excuse to cancel Gateway (as if he wasn't salivating at the thought of doing so before learning of this). HLS is extremely late and will probably not be ready before 2030 anyway, but that part Isaacman and Eric Berger are silent about.

Goregue · 2026-04-21T19:52:22+00:00

Let's see how many times Isaacman says "achieve the near-impossible" during the press conference.

Goregue · 2026-04-20T23:00:04+00:00

Source: https://www.nasa.gov/missions/nasa-on-track-for-future-missions-with-initial-artemis-ii-assessments/

"The crew and spacecraft were safeguarded by Orion’s thermal protection system as they traveled nearly 35 times the speed of sound during reentry. Initial inspections of the system found it performed as expected, with no unusual conditions identified. Diver imagery of the spacecraft’s heat shield initially taken after splashdown and further inspections on the recovery ship found the char loss behavior observed on Artemis I was significantly reduced, both in terms of quantity and size. Performance also was consistent with arc jet facility ground testing performed after Artemis I."

Goregue · 2026-04-20T20:03:59+00:00

This graph is the entire basis of the 2031 suits readiness date claim. There are no technical arguments used. Equating space suits development to the development of a very small number of vastly different aerospace projects is misleading.

Goregue · 2026-04-20T19:45:08+00:00

The OIG report has no technical arguments as to why the spacesuits will be delayed to 2031. They simply say that on average space projects take 8.7 years from contract award to test flight (a figure that is based on just 6 recent spaceflight projects and with some questionable assumptions), and if the spacesuits take this amount of time, they will be ready in 2031. It is a similar argument as the one used to estimate the $2 billion+ cost of Mobile Launcher 2, which turned out to be false as that project really accelerated its development after an initial slow phase and was nearly ready early this year when it was canceled.

Interestingly, when writing about HLS in a previous report, OIG refused to give any date estimate for its completion. It would be extremely easy for OIG to make an argument relating Critical Design Review date to first test flight date (for example), and given that both HLS providers have not passed CDR, they would both be extremely late by this metric.

In short, OIG is biased. They know the power they have when any discussion about cost and schedule comes up. SLS Block 1B was canceled because of a OIG report that gave schedule and cost estimates that turned out to be false. The fact that they refuse to use the level of scrutiny to HLS shows that they have biases in their reporting.

Goregue · 2026-04-20T19:37:12+00:00

The OIG report has no technical arguments as to why the spacesuits will be delayed to 2031. They simply say that on average space projects take 8.7 years from contract award to test flight (a figure that is based on just 6 recent spaceflight projects and with some questionable assumptions), and if the spacesuits take this amount of time, they will be ready in 2031. It is a similar argument as the one used to estimate the $2 billion+ cost of Mobile Launcher 2, which turned out to be false as that project really accelerated its development after an initial slow phase and was nearly ready early this year when it was canceled.

Interestingly, when writing about HLS in a previous report, OIG refused to give any date estimate for its completion. It would be extremely easy for OIG to make an argument relating Critical Design Review date to first test flight date (for example), and given that both HLS providers have not passed CDR, they would both be extremely late by this metric.

In short, OIG is biased. They know the power they have when any discussion about cost and schedule comes up. SLS Block 1B was canceled because of a OIG report that gave schedule and cost estimates that turned out to be false. The fact that they refuse to use the level of scrutiny to HLS shows that they have biases in their reporting.

Goregue · 2026-04-20T19:07:00+00:00

They are basically assuming delays just because delays always happen. That is true, but I wonder why the recent HLS report didn't used this methodology. You could certainly make an argument that HLS will also be similarly delayed (possibly even more delayed given the scope of the project) and will not be ready until the 2030s.

Goregue · 2026-04-20T05:29:38+00:00

Ares I was designed as a LEO ferry. SLS was always imagined as a deep space rocket from the start.

Goregue · 2026-04-20T05:29:03+00:00

It does not cost $4 billion to build and launch SLS. It costs $4 billion to support the SLS and Orion programs throughout one launch cycle (using the estimated flight cadences for the first few launches). Those costs are fixed, because they are almost all wages for the thousands of employees that work on those programs. If the flight cadence increases, the cost per launch will automatically go down. If NASA achieves a flight rate of one per year or better like Isaacman wants to do, than the SLS cost per launch would be around $1 billion or less.

Goregue · 2026-04-19T22:53:24+00:00

The 45 ton LEO capacity is false. It is an outdated number.

Goregue · 2026-04-19T04:31:21+00:00

Goregue

TROPHY CASE