There is just so much wrong with this from start to finish. Here are a few things, by no means inclusive: 1. We’ve already beaten China to the moon by 56 years, 3 months, and some change. And counting. 2. Nothing based around SLS is remotely serious. The cost and timeline of doing anything with it are unreasonable. It is an absolute dead-end. The SpaceX Super Heavy has been more capable arguably as early as the secon…
> Nothing based around SLS is remotely serious
Boeing and Lockheed will deliver on time and on budget.
I do think that Blue Origin HLS is less complex overall, but I agree that they aren't dealing with the same kind of complexity. Both companies are playing to their strengths there. A major weakness of SpaceX's HLS approach is that it requires them to launch a lot of the same vehicle in a fairly short succession. But SpaceX are the kings of high volume aerospace manufacturing, and they are the driving force behind US…
Complexity vs. Tedium. There's a difference. The SpaceX approach requires a lot of launches, but they're already proven experts at that. They've launched something like 130 rockets this year alone. That's one every couple of days. High launch cadence is not complexity for SpaceX. It's normal for them. After the first half dozen or so refuels, it will be second nature, just like delivering satellites with Falcon is. A…
I think the main problem for Starship is that they need to do a large number of tanker launches (about 20 I believe) in a timeframe in which the propellant in the LEO depot doesn't boil off. I assume they need to develop some good sun shielding for that. 20 launches could take quite a long time (multiple months? a year?) since it will probably take quite a few years till Starship, especially the upper stage, is rapidly reusable. They can't wait that long with Artemis 3, with Sean Duffy adding pressure.
>NASA regresses so far that they are now unable to do anything by themselves... I keep running across this perception and I don't understand where it comes from. Overwhelmingly, like since the 1970s, NASA has not built anything per it's appropriations from congress. Their job is to 1) Define mission requirements and objectives, 2) Oversee contracts to execute those missions, 3) Test and verify elements of those syste…
> since the 1970s, NASA has not built anything NASA JPL built all the Mars rovers, and Mars Helicopter. JPL is operated by Caltech, but it is a NASA-branded laboratory that builds and operates planetary exploration robots itself. This pedantry just to honor the amazing work these people have done.
Not sure if any of my anecdata when I was a contractor are relevant anymore given current circumstances,
but among all the NASA facilities I worked with, JPL really seemed to be doing its own thing, mostly for better. They were a bit quirky to work with though, because they did seem to do so much more in-house than elsewhere.
So I don't know if it's that independence or their zip code that has made them such a target, but I wonder if it has been that they have less political capital from moneyed interests keeping them off the chopping block.
But any gutting of JPL is probably irreplaceable damage.
These people had some kooky hobbies, but they actually had resumes that got them their jobs and the key qualification wasn't "completely unprincipled sycophant."
> * I'm not seeing what makes SpaceX government funded beyond just that it provides services to the government* Take away all of SpaceX‘s government contracts. You imagine SpaceX would still be in business? As you said, every launch provider is basically dependent on government contracts to stay in business because the government is the only entity that has a legitimate need for launch capability such that it’s willi…
Do you have any evidence for any of your claims beyond not liking the idiot that owns the company?
It’s true of all private launch providers, not just SpaceX.
SpaceX and to a much lesser extent Tesla are good examples. Excluding those for a minute, what else does the US have world-leading manufacturing of? Semiconductors? Nope. High speed rail? Nope. Auto industry? Nope. Major infrastructure projects like bridges, tunnels, airports, etc? Nope. Electronics (phones/laptops/etc)? Nope. ????? The US is not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse.
It is a rent extraction/wealth transfer powerhouse. At least for now.
Can you elaborate how SpaceX is an extraction/wealth transfer powerhouse?
Which will backfire spectacularly when Obama is re-elected.
The constitutional amendment that GOP have put forward specifically prohibits any president who previously served two consecutive terms. (they had already thought this through, it literally only allows Trump three terms)
“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than three times, nor be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”
Which will backfire spectacularly when Obama is re-elected.
If it were to happen, I fully expect the supreme court to contort itself for a bespoke ruling that only applies under the current set of circumstances, favoring a very specific candidate and no one else.
Oh yeah. Replace the stainless steel by carbon fibre, give it to your pals of Boing and instead of being ready in 2030 for 2.3 billion it will be ready in 2050 for 50 billion. Much better for making your friends rich.
Stainless steel was a questionable choice for starship. If the pros outweigh the cons, which is yet to be seen, it will be mostly due to the peculiarities of Starship's other design choices. In general it's a terrible choice for rockets. I'm not saying Boeing would do a better job, but any actual engineer doing a ground up redesign starting today would definitely go with carbon fiber.
They did experiment with carbon fiber if I recall correctly
Which will backfire spectacularly when Obama is re-elected.
If they do this approach they will surely say that the constitutional limit is two consecutive terms, and since Trump's two terms were non-consecutive, he's still eligible to run again.