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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nearly all of SLS's delays were because of Boeing's failures. You can see a list/timeline of all the years of delays here. [1] I do agree Boeing was a great company decades ago. The 747 was basically synonymous with high quality commercial airflight in the same way the Falcon has become synonymous with high quality commercial spaceflight. But a lot changes over the decades, and now the 737-MAX is synonymous with what the company has become.
You cannot look at SpaceX's financials, as they are a private company. And the nature of their business makes intelligent estimates anything but intelligent. For instance the recently 'leaked' $1.8 billion contract to deploy a spy network for the NRO is hardly surprising, but something few were privy to until recently.
But in any case the reason they remain private is so they can focus on the long-term vision instead of working to maximize short-term revenue, which often comes at the expense of the former. Ultimately though, none of the side projects they have carried out has posed any economic risk to them even in the case of complete failure. In fact one can argue that Starlink was a complete failure relative to their projections - yet it's already profitable.
> Nearly all of SLS’s delays where because of Boeing’s failures.
Half of the delays were moving from day X in 2022 to day Y in 2022. So yes by number most where Boeing’s failure, but all of those combined added up to less than a single funding issue.
> You cannot look at SpaceX's financials
Me personally no, but they have leaked in multiple ways at multiple times. Hell a recent direct quote from the CEO said they risk bankruptcy. That’s not something you want to hear when considering doing long term business with them.
Again what you're saying here is just not true. The SLS had numerous technical issues throughout 2022 - leaks, temperature issues, controller issues, and more. I'm not sure what you're referencing with a "funding issue" because that's not a reason for why a launch would be scrubbed.
As for bankruptcy stuff - Elon's comments about bankruptcy are not recent, they were from 2021 - right in the midst of COVID and global economic collapse. Every company was considering these sort of issues at the time.
Boeing's approach was a bit... different. Instead of trying to work around these issues, they simply went to congress and asked for a $60 billion bailout. They ended up getting an even better deal - "privately" bailed out by the Fed who bought up about $25 billion worth of low rate 'Boeing bonds.' That 'influence' at play, once again.
> The SLS had numerous technical issues throughout 2022
And then it launched in 2022. The point if you look at a breakdown of days late the percentage looks very different than if you count moving the launch date back 1 week just as important as moving it back a year.
Talking about number of delays is kind of silly when there’s orders of magnitude between the longest delay and the shortest.
> from 2021
The specific example I was thinking was more recent than the 2021 tweet. He’s made the comment several times in various contexts, thus people being reasonably concerned about the companies finances.
Well, failing to launch at a scheduled time and long term general delays are two different aspects of failure from my perspective. One is an inability to meet short term goals, and the other is an inability to meet long term goals. I'd consider it to be akin to something like tactics vs strategy - and both reflect upon a company in different ways.
As for the SpaceX thing, this is just concern trolling. Nobody has any genuine concern about SpaceX's financial stability. This also includes Elon, but I also think he's focused on the longterm - and in such a frame of thought considering black swan events is critical. In the worst case scenario he could take SpaceX public and raise hundreds of billions, but that would also likely greatly imperil their overall mission. There's no money [for now] to be made colonizing Mars, and so making oneself beholden to shareholders in inconducive to progress.
I'd also add that this is even more true when we're comparing them to companies like Boeing. Boeing's already been bailed out at least once, and is extremely dependent on reckless government spending as well as our forever wars. Even right now when we're carrying out multiple wars around the world and dumping massive amounts of money towards Boeing for space missions that they will probably never complete, Boeing's losing about a billion a year. Expressing concern about SpaceX's finances when comparing them against 'that' is something that cannot be considered a realistic concern.
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.