Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 153 posts

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#41

Post by pfdietz »

ElFitz wrote: post #39
tailspin2019 wrote: post #37

You have to fail to move forwards. A lack of failure is a sign of a lack of trying anything new. Hasn’t SpaceX proved that? The negative commentary around this seems a little in contrast to how we’d talk about a SpaceX “failure” on HN. I know NASA and SpaceX are very different, but Elon is the king of drifting deadlines too. And SpaceX do fail, but they do a good job of “owning their failures” and they keep moving fo…

True, but they are failing very, very , slowly. The big difference between NASA and SpaceX lies in how fast they each move, and what they are failing at. Failing at launching the first private rocket on a tight budget, at landing a rocket for the first time, or at iterating on rocket designs at pace rarely, if ever, seen before is expected . As a matter of fact, it’s success that isn’t expected. Failing at making yet…

SpaceX learns by doing, not by years of expensive analysis that ends up not preventing failure anyway.

SpaceX's approach also deals with the real problem, which is a program having the wrong goals, rather than making mistakes in working toward a given goal. How many of you have built a product that ended up working great, but was a failure because it was the wrong product?

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#42

Post by Jabbles »

sandworm101 wrote: post #33
BurningFrog wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That USAF person in the back of the room with their finger on the destruct button. I'm not going up until that job is eliminated!

Then you aren't going up. Rockets are massive tanks of explosives flying through the air at supersonic speeds. That person is there to protect the people on the ground. Launch escape systems will protect the crew, but given the energies involved, the crew is less important than the potential for killing hundreds on the ground, or potentially thousands onboard a cruise ship.

I hope it's actually 2 people like in nuclear missile silos. Is there any public information?

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#43

Post by pfdietz »

mhh__ wrote: post #27
JackFr wrote: post #2

I’m not a rocket scientist and I also don’t want to bash NASA, but the size of the budget here coupled with the lack of transparency about the failure is in stark contrast with what we’ve seen out of both SpaceX and Blue Origin. Maybe what NASA is trying to do here from an engineering perspective is much, much harder. I also feel there may be unjustified spin in this article. But to an untrained eye this article sure…

It is a jobs program. It's not nicknamed the senate launch system for nothing. If they were doing it now I'm sure they'd be tempted in just contracting out and just building the payloads, but when it was being laid out they didn't exist.

Now that Shelby is in the minority party in the Senate I think we may see this thing killed.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#44

Post by pfdietz »

yamoriyamori wrote: post #17

This article published the day before the SLS test, but I think it's important context (engineering vs. financial corporate culture) for Boeing's involvement, and just how dang difficult it is to get systems integrated (software, hardware, and um giant rockets). The article notes just how well Spacex has been doing even under greater scrutiny by NASA, while Boeing might have been implicitly trusted as a name/brand wi…

No pay wall:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/boeings-other-big-proble...

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#45

Post by blackrock »

bob1029 wrote: post #9
JackFr wrote: post #2

I’m not a rocket scientist and I also don’t want to bash NASA, but the size of the budget here coupled with the lack of transparency about the failure is in stark contrast with what we’ve seen out of both SpaceX and Blue Origin. Maybe what NASA is trying to do here from an engineering perspective is much, much harder. I also feel there may be unjustified spin in this article. But to an untrained eye this article sure…

Nothing about SLS makes sense to me economically. F9 Launch Cost (without reuse): $65mm FH Launch Cost (without reuse): $150mm SLS Launch Cost: >$2,000mm How does anyone square this arrangement? What saving graces does SLS have (from an engineering perspective) compared to the SpaceX programs? There are certainly a lot of downsides and I would be really disappointed to learn that there are no upsides.

Can Falcon Heavy launch payloads with a wider diameter?

I assume they’d have to build an additional adapter to handler wider payloads.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#46

Post by blackrock »

Isinlor wrote: post #11
JackFr wrote: post #2

I’m not a rocket scientist and I also don’t want to bash NASA, but the size of the budget here coupled with the lack of transparency about the failure is in stark contrast with what we’ve seen out of both SpaceX and Blue Origin. Maybe what NASA is trying to do here from an engineering perspective is much, much harder. I also feel there may be unjustified spin in this article. But to an untrained eye this article sure…

Great comparison of SLS vs. Starship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA69Oh3_obY Key points: https://i2.wp.com/everydayastronaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2... Mass to the Moon: - Saturn 5: 49 metric tonnes - SLS: 43 metric tonnes - Starship: 156 metric tonnes Price per launch: - Saturn 5: 1.2B dollars - SLS: 0.875B dollars - Staraship: 0.1B dollars worse case scenario (Elon aims at 0.002B$) Price per kg: - Satrun 5: 2…

This also makes the big assumption that Starship is successful. And that Starship’s cost estimates are even realistic.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#47

Post by tailspin2019 »

mcbutterbunz wrote: post #38
tailspin2019 wrote: post #37

You have to fail to move forwards. A lack of failure is a sign of a lack of trying anything new. Hasn’t SpaceX proved that? The negative commentary around this seems a little in contrast to how we’d talk about a SpaceX “failure” on HN. I know NASA and SpaceX are very different, but Elon is the king of drifting deadlines too. And SpaceX do fail, but they do a good job of “owning their failures” and they keep moving fo…

I don’t mind failure and I understand there are going to be setbacks. I just wish they would fail faster. I love NASA and all they’ve done but 10 years of SLS without a launch makes me doubt this thing will ever get off the ground. With a new administration, I feel like we’re one setback away from the whole thing being cancelled.

> I don’t mind failure and I understand there are going to be setbacks. I just wish they would fail faster.

I do agree with this. I just took issue with the lede being “rocket test fails” as if that’s a bad thing.

The underlying points are all valid, speed, cost etc but a failed test is not the thing to be focussing the argument on in my view.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#48

Post by tailspin2019 »

ElFitz wrote: post #39
tailspin2019 wrote: post #37

You have to fail to move forwards. A lack of failure is a sign of a lack of trying anything new. Hasn’t SpaceX proved that? The negative commentary around this seems a little in contrast to how we’d talk about a SpaceX “failure” on HN. I know NASA and SpaceX are very different, but Elon is the king of drifting deadlines too. And SpaceX do fail, but they do a good job of “owning their failures” and they keep moving fo…

True, but they are failing very, very , slowly. The big difference between NASA and SpaceX lies in how fast they each move, and what they are failing at. Failing at launching the first private rocket on a tight budget, at landing a rocket for the first time, or at iterating on rocket designs at pace rarely, if ever, seen before is expected . As a matter of fact, it’s success that isn’t expected. Failing at making yet…

> True, but they are failing very, very, slowly.

I can’t argue with that!

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#49

Post by tw04 »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #37

You have to fail to move forwards. A lack of failure is a sign of a lack of trying anything new. Hasn’t SpaceX proved that? The negative commentary around this seems a little in contrast to how we’d talk about a SpaceX “failure” on HN. I know NASA and SpaceX are very different, but Elon is the king of drifting deadlines too. And SpaceX do fail, but they do a good job of “owning their failures” and they keep moving fo…

I don't think the negativity is directed at NASA so much as Boeing. They've made a business out of grifting, and this is just another example of it.

Shelby is more concerned with staying in office than making advances in space, and it shows. That's not NASA's fault, they're trying to do the right thing IN SPITE of the political pressure to waste money in order for a politician to be able to claim he's "creating jobs" in his state.

http://innerspace.net/congress-2/richard-shelbys-war-against...

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#50

Post by frakkingcylons »

mhh__ wrote: post #27
JackFr wrote: post #2

I’m not a rocket scientist and I also don’t want to bash NASA, but the size of the budget here coupled with the lack of transparency about the failure is in stark contrast with what we’ve seen out of both SpaceX and Blue Origin. Maybe what NASA is trying to do here from an engineering perspective is much, much harder. I also feel there may be unjustified spin in this article. But to an untrained eye this article sure…

It is a jobs program. It's not nicknamed the senate launch system for nothing. If they were doing it now I'm sure they'd be tempted in just contracting out and just building the payloads, but when it was being laid out they didn't exist.

As jobs programs go in the U.S., I’d rather they waste money on an obsolete launch system for space exploration rather than weapons. Unfortunately the bar is pretty low in the U.S..
Post reply on HN