21–30 of 78 posts
For perspective 2.7B is 0.04% of the entire US budget for 2024. This is a rocket that goes to the moon. If your reaction is "lord help us" then perhaps space exploration just isn't in your blood.
Artemis has cost nearly $100B so far, and with increases like this, that seems unlikely to slow down.
For perspective 2.7B is 0.04% of the entire US budget for 2024. This is a rocket that goes to the moon. If your reaction is "lord help us" then perhaps space exploration just isn't in your blood.
This isn't for the rocket, just the structure that it's connected to before launch. Tens of billions of dollars have already been wasted on the rocket. I say "wasted" because it's already essentially obsoleted by the Falcon Heavy which has been ready to go for years, is reliable, and launches at a tiny fraction of the cost. And by the time Starship comes into play you're talking about a Ford Pinto being sold at Lambo…
I actually do think that more than one US-based provider of space launch systems is something important, but it's wild to me that mature US launch systems can basically be cleanly divided into "companies trying to sell the same technology to the government for the fifth time over fifty years" and "SpaceX."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't for the rocket, just the structure that it's connected to before launch. Tens of billions of dollars have already been wasted on the rocket. I say "wasted" because it's already essentially obsoleted by the Falcon Heavy which has been ready to go for years, is reliable, and launches at a tiny fraction of the cost. And by the time Starship comes into play you're talking about a Ford Pinto being sold at Lambo…
Falcon Heavy, fully expendable, can send about 15,190kg to TLI (Trans Lunar Injection). The Saturn V sent about 48,600kg to TLI. The current SLS can send about 27,000kg to TLI, and block 2 is expected to send between 43,000kg and 47,000kg to TLI. Could the Falcon Heavy be used on a multi-part moon mission? No doubt, but it's not in the same weight class as SLS.
How is it that government contractors can't build this thing on even a 9-year engineering schedule (July 2019–September 2028) when SpaceX is iterating almost exactly the same thing, on a timescale of months? They've already launched 4 SLS-sized vehicles, and have very visibly been redesigning the ground-support equipment each time around. The next launch for instance (next month!) debuts mechanical arms attached to t…
Well, they do a lot of fundamental try/test that others use then, including SpaceX. Didn't want to defend NASAs schedules, of course, but still they are often the first pioneers in many areas. And that plays not really well with public money, unlike private startups that can do whatever.
Meanwhile SpaceX got reusable first stages into production, and recently got the world's largest-ever rocket to orbit and attempted to land the second stage. And it's all powered by newly designed engines that significantly advance the state of the art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Artemis has cost nearly $100B so far, and with increases like this, that seems unlikely to slow down.
If Musk wasn't going crazy, it would make sense to kill the SLS.
Edit: she’s president and COO apparently. Musk is CEO, nm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Falcon Heavy, fully expendable, can send about 15,190kg to TLI (Trans Lunar Injection). The Saturn V sent about 48,600kg to TLI. The current SLS can send about 27,000kg to TLI, and block 2 is expected to send between 43,000kg and 47,000kg to TLI. Could the Falcon Heavy be used on a multi-part moon mission? No doubt, but it's not in the same weight class as SLS.
The Falcon Heavy can ship can ship 16.8k kg to Mars [1] and that's at a higher delta V distance/cost than TLI. In general the SLS can carry around 50% more than a Falcon Heavy, but the Falcon Heavy (fully expended) costs 5-10% as much. [1] - https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/falcon-heavy/
And yes, the cost difference is absolutely staggering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't for the rocket, just the structure that it's connected to before launch. Tens of billions of dollars have already been wasted on the rocket. I say "wasted" because it's already essentially obsoleted by the Falcon Heavy which has been ready to go for years, is reliable, and launches at a tiny fraction of the cost. And by the time Starship comes into play you're talking about a Ford Pinto being sold at Lambo…
Just to add on, if you don't mind: the SLS uses four RS-25 engines, the exact same engines that were used on the Space Shuttle (admittedly, there is a plan to improve them later), as well as solid rocket engines that are derived from the Shuttle SRBs. I actually do think that more than one US-based provider of space launch systems is something important, but it's wild to me that mature US launch systems can basically…
Say what we will about Elon, but him gambling his PayPal fortune was the best thing that happened to the US space program (and the global space race as whole!)
How is it that government contractors can't build this thing on even a 9-year engineering schedule (July 2019–September 2028) when SpaceX is iterating almost exactly the same thing, on a timescale of months? They've already launched 4 SLS-sized vehicles, and have very visibly been redesigning the ground-support equipment each time around. The next launch for instance (next month!) debuts mechanical arms attached to t…
This creates uncertainties, distractions and perverse incentives all around:
0. Everything is dramatically complicated by the artificial divisions of work across states needed to get enough political support. Grossly inefficient from the start, and inflexible into perpetuity.
1. Initial schedules are incentivized to be unrealistic, and not reflective of hard analysis/planning, in order to get funding. Easier to deal with the real details and expand schedules later, even though nobody wants that to be the process.
2. Essentially a cost plus (or cost even) program. There is no hard limit on cost, since the further along a project is, the easier it is to raise its budget, especially along with schedule delays.
3. Creativity flows to the most basic constraint. The most basic constraint is political will to fund, so top level attention goes to managing/manipulating up.
When NASA's hard constraint was time (getting to the moon first), creativity went there. They were never cheap, but they did operate with incredible speed.
Whereas any private company's basic constraints are relative profitability in terms of net return in a given time frame, so creativity goes to both speed and cost.
4. Boeing and other traditional large NASA contractors operated for decades under NASA's politically driven, cost plus umbrella, so continue to suffer from, and reinforce, NASA's problems.
This culture is hard to break, even after switching to a flat cost (still time flexible) regime. See recent Boeing troubles. Not just throw away rockets, but a much delayed, over budget, wonky one-way manned spaceship!! Ouch!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Artemis has cost nearly $100B so far, and with increases like this, that seems unlikely to slow down.
If Musk wasn't going crazy, it would make sense to kill the SLS.