IIRC, the bottleneck is on the capsule, not the rocket.

They’re reusing quite a bit from the Artemis 1 Orion capsule (including the avionics), so they have to complete this mission (including any evaluation after it lands) before they can take it out and finish the Orion for Artemis 2.

The attention span of the youth these days... always looking for the new upgrade ;)

Yikes... I imagine this is because they want important data before making any improvements, but still.

Thanks for the compliment. However, right now I'm trying to create an account on medicare.gov.

It is 2022. We need to build and launch at least one a year. I don't know if NASA is up to it.

As someone who supports space exploration, saying “we need” to launch one a year is a pretty childish way to scope out space travel plans

[deleted]

For the rocket, everything's mostly done and it's down to final assembly (i.e. joining engines to the core stage, shipping everything to Florida). There should be a mostly complete rocket in Florida early 2023.

Many of the bottlenecks have been related to Artemis 1 so now that that's flying, things can start moving forward. The Mobile Launcher will need a few upgrades to support crew and those will now begin, and then they need to get the Artemis 1 Orion back to pull some avionics for use in the Artemis 2 capsule. If we get Orion back safe in December I'd feel good about a late 2024 launch.

Thank you. Good to know.

what other people said but bruh, they just launched artemis 1 and will wait for the crucial data from that mission for any necessary changes, it’s better to be safe then have 4 dead astronauts around the moon

No, it's because NASA wanted to save money. It's a year or more to do this change because Orion isn't easy to work on *at all*.

"save money" do we know the opportunity cost of waiting for used hardware and paying idle fee vs whole new orion and launch the rocket?

I feel like 1/yr is not remotely enough

I agree. However, that's what they said they can accomplish. So we should at least hold them to that (at a minimum).

Like most large organizations, that's not something NASA tracks.

You can be sure that somebody in management hit their budget through that maneuver.

I used to work for a software company with developers that cost $200K a year (salary + benefits + stock + etc.) and were willing to do extra work if they only got $2500 laptops, but the company wouldn't do it. Somebody probably got promoted for that one.