Ther is no mention of the lander. Isn’t it supposed to be a version of that thing that SpaceX still has in the “Explodes 100% of the times going up, never mind coming back, and forget about landing” stage?
That’s just a difference in testing methods. Testing to failure figuring out what went wrong and fixing it is a valid method. If you look at ULA’s timeline, their testing and design for Vulcan was done not during flights, but it cost them falling behind in launch orders.
Besides, the lander wasn’t going to be used until Artemis III. Whatever delays II isn’t caused by SpaceX.
Ther is no mention of the lander. Isn’t it supposed to be a version of that thing that SpaceX still has in the “Explodes 100% of the times going up, never mind coming back, and forget about landing” stage?
That’s just a difference in testing methods. Testing to failure figuring out what went wrong and fixing it is a valid method. If you look at ULA’s timeline, their testing and design for Vulcan was done not during flights, but it cost them falling behind in launch orders.
Besides, the lander wasn’t going to be used until Artemis III. Whatever delays II isn’t caused by SpaceX.
Vulcan was delayed because of BE-4 readiness, not because of anything ULA itself was doing
Still doesn’t invalidate what I said. If their testing was done during flights it could have made it to space sooner.
The BE-4 did look really good though.