51–60 of 78 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Musk wasn't going crazy, it would make sense to kill the SLS.
Shotwell seems like a solid CEO though? Edit: she’s president and COO apparently. Musk is CEO, nm.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41230320 also confuses the name/gender, Glenn vs. Gwynne
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keep in mind that Starship has never made it to orbit.
Yes, but it *launched* four times, and the launch tower verifiably works, and it didn't take a decade to build. That's the subject of this question, isn't it? The $2.7 billion NASA wants to spend on a steel-frame launch tower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% - 1 rocket failure away from financial ruin!
It’s crazy how different the world would be right now. Ukrainian generals admitted they would have been defeated quickly without Starlink.
> Musk told engineers to turn off communications network to hobble Ukraine drone attack on Russian warships
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…
Some of it is reasonable. Covid threw a spanner in schedules and increased costs due to a rise in price levels. Some is from design changes due to new information, e.g. "during launch, the SLS generates exhaust blast plume pressure, random vibration, vibration from acoustics, and heat. These loads can cause damage to the launch vehicle, payload, launch pad, and surrounding structures. After the Artemis I launch, NASA found higher-than-expected thermal, acoustic, and blast loads to the ML-1. ML-2 project management is assessing these lessons learned from Artemis I and anticipates the ML-2 structure will require some additional strengthening to withstand the predicted loads" [1].
A lot of it, however, is laughably-incompetent cost-plus subcontracting nonsense: "While Bechtel revised its IFCs in response to the RFIs, according to ML-2 project management, the company did not allot sufficient time in its schedule to do so, and this iterative process resulted in cost increases and schedule delays. In mid-2023, ML-2 project management found the delays in steel fabrication and delivery resulted in a 3-month schedule slip, leaving Bechtel with no additional schedule reserve to meet the May 2026 contract end date.
...
In mid-2021, ML-2 project management noted that Bechtel’s 'interactions and business relationship with the steel fabricator deteriorated to the point of dysfunction,' resulting in unresolved fabrication issues that impacted the ML-2 project’s critical path. Bechtel’s lack of awareness and oversight of critical second-tier subcontractors responsible for steel fabrication contributed to a delayed construction start date. One subcontractor, which Bechtel allocated approximately 46 percent of the fabrication work to, sold all of its shop space to a non-NASA customer because Bechtel's steel fabrication plan lacked a signed contract with the subcontractor. As a result, Bechtel attempted to find another subcontractor with available shop space but was unable to do so in a timely manner. The delay in the steel fabrication process continued to impact the ML-2 project’s schedule" (pp 18).
[1] https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ig-24-016.pd... page 20
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They were never cheap, but they did operate with incredible speed at that time. Actually, they were good, fast, and pretty cheap. The Saturn V cost per kg was much something around $5000/kg (compared to Delta IV Heavy at around $12000 kg), and could send a ton more into orbit than anything until Starship. If we'd continued down that development line instead of the insanity of the Shuttle, we'd really be somewhere t…
They also inherited a lot of free R&D from the Nazi V2 rocket program via Wernher Von Braun and several of his collaborators thanks to Operation Paperclip… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
It’s not like that knowledge was forgotten and rediscovered post 1972.
OAG report on Launcher 2: https://www.oversight.gov/report/NASA/NASA%E2%80%99s-Managem... The contractor is Bechtel. Note, the Senate Launch System is already a huge success: money was transferred from the taxpayer to the contractors as a "jobs program". It doesn't matter if anything flies.
That't s a good link, thank you. > NASA intends to keep Bechtel accountable to the cost and schedule agreed to in December 2023. It's mind boggling how they heck is Bechtel qualified to handle this project? Bechtel is at the center of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War / https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/bechtel-battles-against-... . Talk about an agency that supposedly cares to look progressive and…
This means cancelling Artemis II.
And it will be 3 years late! I honestly would love to know how much money is 'wasted' by NASA because of these companies that seem to, over promise and then need a lot more money. And I don't say wasted because I think that the money spent at NASA is not worthwhile. But how much else could be done if that money could be spent elsewhere or at the very least be properly estimated in the beginning so it could have been…
Stoke Space seems like it has potential. Same engineering philosophy as SpaceX, really innovative design, going for 100% reusability from the start. Everyday Astronaut visited them last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY8nbSwjtEY https://www.stokespace.com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/
I’m honestly shocked more “assemble in orbit” type mission structures haven’t been proposed. Falcon Heavy is just so convenient yet ignored.
Starship will be a game changer in the most literal sense here as long as they figure out payload doors…
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…
SpaceX is like Google, whereas NASA is worse than Oracle because it's the federal government AND a highly regulated industry involving human safety. This is in so many ways, hiring to engineering processes.
A lot of Artemis is dictated to NASA by the Congress. Look at NASA's deep science missions, e.g. landers, probes and telescopes. They're ridiculously advanced, creative and cost effective for the amount of science they deliver.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Musk wasn't going crazy, it would make sense to kill the SLS.
Do you think Musk's antics are having a notable negative effect on SpaceX? There's no doubt that's the case with Tesla.
Um, yes.[1]
[1] https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-is-turning-off-would-be-tesla...