421–430 of 455 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there such a need for a heavy launch rocket to launch routinely?
Needs tend to develop once the means are there. 200 years ago, there was no need to use electricity. 100 years ago, there was no need to use a programming language. 30 years ago, there was no need for gigabit wireless Internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think we should. SpaceX has successfully applied the "move fast and break things" approach to rockets, but that's not something you can do everywhere. If Musk, as Trump's "efficiency secretary", will reduce regulations that "hinder" Tesla from doing the same thing with robotaxis, people are going to die.
I think there is an honest debate here for the tech side of the house and its implications/risks/etc, but my point is, I think, more broad than 'will we move too fast elsewhere'. I worry he will bring twitter like problems, 'free speech is important, if it is approved by me', to space and Mars. I can easily imagine a future where the Moon, Mars and space are accessible, so long as you are approved by Musk to be in sp…
It is not crazy to believe that in the medium term that SpaceX will be one of the only viable ways for America to access space. In that position SpaceX will have a lot of leverage and ability to extract concessions from anyone wanting to go to space.
Why my tax dollars should go to help the worlds richest man build a toll booth between earth and space is beyond me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider ocean-going freight transportation: the container ships and the containers, the port facilities and the cranes. Now imagine that you were able to witness the very first round-trip sailing of such a container ship between two newly constructed still-experimental-and-heretofore-unproven ports. That'd be pretty cool right? The dawn of a new era in global trade. This is that, for space. (Booster as container shi…
No. The ports were just expanding on an existing idea. I live in a port city, a thousand years ago middle ages people with much smaller boats used this same area to travel much shorter distances with fewer goods, today it has those cranes and a railway and moves inter-modal containers which have travelled from across the world, but it's just the same idea. Why is there a port here? Because of the unusual tidal patter…
Similarly, moon or Mars bases will be where they are if the location has some useful(1) industry and sufficient resources to support a population servicing that industry.
(1) 'Useful' to them, and not necessarily to everyone everywhere all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is arguing Falcon 9 isn't a good deal but you can't compare SLS to Falcon 9, the comparison would be Starship to Falcon 9, of which, Starship ain't finished! That's all I'm saying.
> you can't compare SLS to Falcon 9 I just did, so you clearly can. And it is also meaningful. In theory, a heavier vehicle should have lower cost to orbit, not higher , all else being equal, as some costs are constant overhead. And this theory turns out to be true when you have a comparable vehicle, the Falcon Heavy: Falcon Heavy: $ 2,100 / kg to LEO (fully expended) SLS: $ 37,000 / kg to LEO Payload capacity is 68t…
That's my whole damn point. It ain't here yet. You're comparing SLS to a fantasy rocket. Starship needs to materialize before we compare IMO.
I personally don't think Starship will ever deliver humans to the moon (but I wouldn't mind being wrong).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Needs tend to develop once the means are there. Counterexample: space stations. We've had small manned space stations for decades now, but no real application for them. They're national prestige items only.
Not true! The ISS has functioned as an outpost for science- 3,000+ experiments and counting https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/five-space-station-res...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally reasonable question. This is the first rocket ever that will (assuming further success) land in its entirety back on the launch pad, refuel, and go back to orbit the same day. Imagine that every time an airliner landed its cockpit was destroyed and you had to build a new one. A fully reusable airplane would be a transformational improvement. That's the level of achievement we're talking about here.
He's already spent the $3bn funding that was supposed to deliver the rocket to the moon and back.
You can go to the official govenrment website and look at the contract, it tells you exactly how much has been paid out and how much has not been. The money is getting out as SpaceX hits development milestones.
I don't remember, exactly but about 2.x billion $ were paid out so far. The money is spread over 40ish milestones. And they have done like 25 or so by now.
To get the full pay out, they will be required to land on the moon and take off again. Those are likely the last couple milestones.
Last times catch was incredible, anything groundbreaking being attempted this time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're already the best and cheapest launch provider with Falcon 9.
Falcon 9 and SLS are not in the same class.
The moon architecture has been designed so that it requires SLS, not the other way around.
No rational planner would ever even consider SLS if they had a choice.
You would much rather launch distributed into LEO, assemble and go from there. The 2 billion $ a year could be spent on important things for the transition and the lander.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll often spend a little time while watching the flight-tests (usually with Tim Dodd / EverydayAstronaut) just doing a search on YouTube for 'spacex live' and usually report 15-20 each time. They are very easy to spot when you've seen a few of them. I'll usually get a report of a few being shut down later in the day, and more over the next couple of days. But, yes, they should be easy for YT to detect & block automa…
Perhaps your account has more Youtube XP. > But, yes, they should be easy for YT to detect & block automatically - it's frustrating they (and other scams) get to stay online so long. It's the Google way. It's impossible until it suddenly isn't. Break up this monster company and regulate the resulting companies until they behave.
Uh, seen the news lately? Not really going to happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you can't compare SLS to Falcon 9 I just did, so you clearly can. And it is also meaningful. In theory, a heavier vehicle should have lower cost to orbit, not higher , all else being equal, as some costs are constant overhead. And this theory turns out to be true when you have a comparable vehicle, the Falcon Heavy: Falcon Heavy: $ 2,100 / kg to LEO (fully expended) SLS: $ 37,000 / kg to LEO Payload capacity is 68t…
> Then comes Starship That's my whole damn point. It ain't here yet. You're comparing SLS to a fantasy rocket. Starship needs to materialize before we compare IMO. I personally don't think Starship will ever deliver humans to the moon (but I wouldn't mind being wrong).