They claimed this would be faster and cheaper by using "proven" technology.
There's already an issue with foam I read about. So I think by "proven" they mean proven to be enormously rewarding to politically connected contractors and proven to be failures.
My estimate is two outcomes: either it doesn't launch; or it does and blows up shortly afterwards.
I did some reading, and there's 16 Shuttle-era RS-25s left, four of which are on Artemis I.
NASA has contracted Rocketdyne to build 24 more new ones.
Hey, it’s an improvement. Shuttle was around $1B per launch back in the ‘80s; we’ve had 5X inflation since then so...a bit underpriced for this big butt white elephant!
It’ll launch a couple of times a year to great fanfare, while over at LC-39A the kidz at SpaceX will be orbiting tons of stuff with their Starship vehicle probably weekly.
I think the later is more than likely what will happen. I hope if it is going to blow that it does before they stick astronauts on board. I fear we are looking at another Apollo 1 event.
They wasted so much money on this white elephant that could have went to a bigger spacecraft, an actual lander and better suits. There are plenty of heavy lift boosters out there that could have been made ready for human use far cheaper than this NASA jobs project.
That mandate was handed down by Congress. Lawyers and grifters telling engineers how to get things done.
Those idiots probably think that a brand-new 1957 Chevy should be cheaper than last year's Toyota. After all, the 1957 Chevy is "proven technology".
Take it from an engineer: building stuff to use "proven" old technology is often harder than using contemporary tech.