4 ms·

I see this as SLS (Senate Launch System) backers feeling threatened by their own bad economics and lack of ability to deliver. So it's time to deploy the PR su

I see this as SLS (Senate Launch System) backers feeling threatened by their own bad economics and lack of ability to deliver. So it's time to deploy the PR submarine fleet...

mstade 9y ago
As much as I try not to reach for the tinfoil hat, I couldn’t help but think the same when reading this article...
calcifer 9y ago
> SLS (Senate Launch System) You sound like the kind of person that unironically writes Micro$oft, mistakenly believing it supports their view point. At best, it makes you look juvenile.
- mieseratte 9y ago
  Considering pork-barrel spending is a well-known problem with Congress (See: the F-35 program), I found it a cute way to concisely describe a problem.
- TangoTrotFox 9y ago
  I strongly disagree. In this case, I think understanding of the SLS is not something that would be expected from the audience reading his comment, and summing it up as the Senate Launch System, of course lacks nuance, but simultaneously does a great job of explaining what it is, why it's so critically flawed, and finally why individuals of certain affiliations would have surreptitious motivations in something that seems like it ought be as distanced from politics as possible.
- wolf550e 9y ago
  The SLS is exactly the rare case where he's right and you're wrong. It is a project whose goal is blatantly to spend money, not to fly any payload on any mission. After spending tens of billions of dollars on development, you get a rocket that will cost a billion to fly, will never achieve the flight numbers to be able to honestly rely on it. It will likely fly very few times before it is cancelled. It will be uneconomical to use for any mission it flies, and any mission that uses it will only do that if they are forced to (the mission requirements changed such that only SLS allows the mission to be done, or the project is cancelled) or if the SLS budget pays for the rocket rather than the mission's budget.
  - vpribish 9y ago
    but name-calling makes you look bad regardless of the merits of your argument
    - phkahler 9y ago
      >but name-calling makes you look bad regardless of the merits of your argument You're right. While it can be funny and it can make one feel good doing so, it almost never helps your cause. The people who laugh along are those who already agree with the point. The rest will be more likely to discount anything of merit that is said because of the apparent bias.
- lucb1e 9y ago
  You sound like the kind of person who attacks a person on their writing style rather than their argument on its contents.
imglorp 9y ago
Yup. By the time SLS gets its Block 0 flying, around 2020, SpaceX will have had around 100 launches with two vehicle types (F9 and F9H), and maybe be certified for humans in Dragon.

I see this as SLS (Senate Launch System) backers feeling threatened by their own bad economics and lack of ability to deliver. So it's time to deploy the PR submarine fleet...

mstade 9y ago

As much as I try not to reach for the tinfoil hat, I couldn’t help but think the same when reading this article...

calcifer 9y ago

> SLS (Senate Launch System) You sound like the kind of person that unironically writes Micro$oft, mistakenly believing it supports their view point. At best, it makes you look juvenile.

mieseratte 9y ago
Considering pork-barrel spending is a well-known problem with Congress (See: the F-35 program), I found it a cute way to concisely describe a problem.
TangoTrotFox 9y ago
I strongly disagree. In this case, I think understanding of the SLS is not something that would be expected from the audience reading his comment, and summing it up as the Senate Launch System, of course lacks nuance, but simultaneously does a great job of explaining what it is, why it's so critically flawed, and finally why individuals of certain affiliations would have surreptitious motivations in something that seems like it ought be as distanced from politics as possible.
wolf550e 9y ago
The SLS is exactly the rare case where he's right and you're wrong. It is a project whose goal is blatantly to spend money, not to fly any payload on any mission. After spending tens of billions of dollars on development, you get a rocket that will cost a billion to fly, will never achieve the flight numbers to be able to honestly rely on it. It will likely fly very few times before it is cancelled. It will be uneconomical to use for any mission it flies, and any mission that uses it will only do that if they are forced to (the mission requirements changed such that only SLS allows the mission to be done, or the project is cancelled) or if the SLS budget pays for the rocket rather than the mission's budget.
- vpribish 9y ago
  but name-calling makes you look bad regardless of the merits of your argument
  - phkahler 9y ago
    >but name-calling makes you look bad regardless of the merits of your argument You're right. While it can be funny and it can make one feel good doing so, it almost never helps your cause. The people who laugh along are those who already agree with the point. The rest will be more likely to discount anything of merit that is said because of the apparent bias.
lucb1e 9y ago
You sound like the kind of person who attacks a person on their writing style rather than their argument on its contents.

imglorp 9y ago

Yup. By the time SLS gets its Block 0 flying, around 2020, SpaceX will have had around 100 launches with two vehicle types (F9 and F9H), and maybe be certified for humans in Dragon.