NASA's ROAD BACK TO THE MOON - Very Big rocket Launch - 2nd Sept 18:48

Two-hour launch window opens from 06:04 GMT on Wednesday, November 16.

NASA TV using EST , add 5 hours to the times

Tuesday, Nov. 15 

6:30 a.m. – Coverage of U.S. Spacewalk 81 to install an IROSA (ISS Rollout Solar Array) modification kit on the starboard 6 truss at the International Space Station (spacewalk scheduled to begin at 8 a.m. EST and will last around 7 hours) (All Channels)

3:30 p.m. – Coverage of the cryogenic fueling of the Space Launch System for launch on the Artemis I mission (All Channels)

10:30 p.m. – Coverage of the launch of the Space Launch System and the Orion spacecraft on the Artemis I mission (Launch scheduled at 1:04 a.m. EST Nov. 16) (All Channels)

Wednesday, Nov. 16 

4 a.m. – Artemis I post-launch news conference (time subject to change) (All Channels)

8:30 a.m. – Artemis I Orion outbound trajectory correction burn coverage (outbound trajectory correction burn scheduled at 8:51 a.m. EST) (All Channels)

10 a.m. – Artemis I Orion first imagery coverage (All Channels)

NASA’s YouTube channel, they are loading the H2 slowly.

eight and a half hours to liftoff.

still chilling down O2

Saturn V used hydrogen so they could send a payload to the moon without needing to assemble smaller parts in orbit, and then went on to rendezvous stuff in orbit around the moon anyway. 21st century tech in the 1960's. Like Star Wars the goal was to have something the Russians couldn't do.

Gemini could have gone to the moon and returned directly on a single rocket https://www.wired.com/2012/05/gemini-on-the-moon-1962/

Or having learnt orbital rendezvous they could have used smaller simpler rockets to assemble the moonshot in low earth orbit.

The SLS rocket's main payload is pork to get senators re-elected. No new technology worth talking about. Hardware changed just enough so it didn't look like you copied the 1970's homework.

http://www.astronautix.com/s/shuttlec.html Shuttle-C could do most of what SLS does with minimal development costs as all the hardware was human rated. But then there wouldn't be a need for $20Bn to change the SRB's from 4 to 5 segments or from 3 to 4 RS-25 engines, and change the diameter slightly so the existing shuttle fuel tanks couldn't be reused.

Using 3 of the old shuttle SRB's would have meant 12 segments instead of 10, more umph for a tiny cost.

So yes almost all of the development costs were wasted. (taking inflation into account the new single-use RS-25 engines cost more than the reusable ones)