3 ms·

Seems they're working on it, at least[1]. ULA has never designed a crew spacecraft. They're just launching it. The Starliner is a Boeing product. Not sure yo

by kiba 6y ago

Seems they're working on it, at least[1]. ULA has never designed a crew spacecraft. They're just launching it. The Starliner is a Boeing product. Not sure your point here? Is that supposed to be a negative thing? Both companies have a massive amount of aerospace experience going back decades. And yet why did NASA chose SpaceX over dynetic, which is full of old companies? SpaceX is an 18 years old company who developed the Falcon 1, Falcon 9(with further 4 iterations), the first Dragon, Dragon 2(with Cargo and Crew variant). They also achieved reusability with supersonic landing, an industry first. Boeing mismanaged their Starliner program to the point that they failed their test flight due to program mismanagement and now have to wait years before they can relaunch Starliner, and thus SpaceX was able to start their commercial crew contract first. Boeing also drastically mismanaged the SLS program. As it is years behind schedule and cost billion of dollars. Lockheed Martin? I don't know much about except the constant controversy surrounding their F-35 program. I'll have to say this: decade of experience means not much if you're slow, inefficient, and do shitty jobs. It's not like SpaceX lack decades of experience either. They have industry veterans too, not just fresh graduate from schools. One of the reasons that they were able to get anywhere in the early days was because they have folks who knows the space industry and able to work with the military.

Alupis 6y ago
> The Starliner is a Boeing product. ULA is Lockheed Martin + Boeing. > controversy surrounding their F-35 program. Fair enough, I'm not fan of the F-35 program either. Although it's not entirely Lockheed's fault... the mandate to have a one-size-fits-all aircraft for all branches of the military was doomed to fail from inception. The military knew it, and I'm certain so did Lockheed and all their contractors. Congress didn't want to hear that though... thinking it would lead to costs savings (oh, how hindsight is 20/20). At a minimum, there should be two competing designs - built through flight testing (if not built to completion and maintained in conjunction to avoid any future safety groundings that stall USA human space flight capabilities). It's nutty to put all eggs into SpaceX's basket. I also hardly believe saving money on such an important mission is important at all. Getting people there and back safely is paramount to saving what amounts to rounding errors in today's spend-happy congressional budget.
- kiba 6y ago
  At a minimum, there should be two competing designs - built through flight testing (if not built to completion and maintained in conjunction to avoid any future safety groundings that stall USA human space flight capabilities). It's nutty to put all eggs into SpaceX's basket. I am sure that the starship program will have the most test flight of any spacecraft development program. I have the uttermost confident in them. That said, I agreed with you that we shouldn't put all our eggs into SpaceX's basket, no matter how good they are. We just don't have insight in NASA's thinking here, only guesses. I also hardly believe saving money on such an important mission is important at all. Getting people there and back safely is paramount to saving what amounts to rounding errors in today's spend-happy congressional budget. What gives you that impression? It seems like NASA gave all the money to SpaceX alone, which is 2.9 billion dollars. The only way that there would be more money is if NASA gets a bigger budget for their lunar program, which would making awarding more than one competitors a more viable option.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    > What gives you that impression? People often cite the extraordinary cost per launch of missions such as this, and how SpaceX can reduce that cost (allegedly) via reusability, etc. I just don't think saving a few bucks on a mission of this importance is worth-while. I'd, personally, much rather return to the moon first, and then figure out if reusability even makes sense later on (if we are to continue going to the moon with any sort of regularity). After all, SpaceX's goal with Starship isn't to do NASA's bidding, it's to push a private company to Mars. > The only way that there would be more money is if NASA gets a bigger budget for their lunar program Which is quite sad. $2.9 billion to go to the moon, and hundreds of billions for congress-critter pet projects in the last few "stimulus" packages. We really cannot find more money to throw behind such important achievements?
    - kiba 6y ago
      People often cite the extraordinary cost per launch of missions such as this, and how SpaceX can reduce that cost (allegedly) via reusability, etc. I just don't think saving a few bucks on a mission of this importance is worth-while. I'd, personally, much rather return to the moon first, and then figure out if reusability even makes sense later on (if we are to continue going to the moon with any sort of regularity). A reusable rocket must be more robust to do what it do while also being much more difficult to accomplish. It's also how we increase safety, which will happen with rapid reusuability. A reusuable rocket cannot afford to cut corner like an expendable rocket. Just because a rocket is more expensive doesn't mean it's safer. The fact that SpaceX is launching more rockets than everyone else means it will be a safer vehicle due to rapid increase in flight experience. More flights mean we iron out more flight. They're not cutting corners here.

by kiba 6y ago

Alupis 6y ago

> The Starliner is a Boeing product. ULA is Lockheed Martin + Boeing. > controversy surrounding their F-35 program. Fair enough, I'm not fan of the F-35 program either. Although it's not entirely Lockheed's fault... the mandate to have a one-size-fits-all aircraft for all branches of the military was doomed to fail from inception. The military knew it, and I'm certain so did Lockheed and all their contractors. Congress didn't want to hear that though... thinking it would lead to costs savings (oh, how hindsight is 20/20). At a minimum, there should be two competing designs - built through flight testing (if not built to completion and maintained in conjunction to avoid any future safety groundings that stall USA human space flight capabilities). It's nutty to put all eggs into SpaceX's basket. I also hardly believe saving money on such an important mission is important at all. Getting people there and back safely is paramount to saving what amounts to rounding errors in today's spend-happy congressional budget.

kiba 6y ago
At a minimum, there should be two competing designs - built through flight testing (if not built to completion and maintained in conjunction to avoid any future safety groundings that stall USA human space flight capabilities). It's nutty to put all eggs into SpaceX's basket. I am sure that the starship program will have the most test flight of any spacecraft development program. I have the uttermost confident in them. That said, I agreed with you that we shouldn't put all our eggs into SpaceX's basket, no matter how good they are. We just don't have insight in NASA's thinking here, only guesses. I also hardly believe saving money on such an important mission is important at all. Getting people there and back safely is paramount to saving what amounts to rounding errors in today's spend-happy congressional budget. What gives you that impression? It seems like NASA gave all the money to SpaceX alone, which is 2.9 billion dollars. The only way that there would be more money is if NASA gets a bigger budget for their lunar program, which would making awarding more than one competitors a more viable option.
- Alupis 6y ago
  > What gives you that impression? People often cite the extraordinary cost per launch of missions such as this, and how SpaceX can reduce that cost (allegedly) via reusability, etc. I just don't think saving a few bucks on a mission of this importance is worth-while. I'd, personally, much rather return to the moon first, and then figure out if reusability even makes sense later on (if we are to continue going to the moon with any sort of regularity). After all, SpaceX's goal with Starship isn't to do NASA's bidding, it's to push a private company to Mars. > The only way that there would be more money is if NASA gets a bigger budget for their lunar program Which is quite sad. $2.9 billion to go to the moon, and hundreds of billions for congress-critter pet projects in the last few "stimulus" packages. We really cannot find more money to throw behind such important achievements?
  - kiba 6y ago
    People often cite the extraordinary cost per launch of missions such as this, and how SpaceX can reduce that cost (allegedly) via reusability, etc. I just don't think saving a few bucks on a mission of this importance is worth-while. I'd, personally, much rather return to the moon first, and then figure out if reusability even makes sense later on (if we are to continue going to the moon with any sort of regularity). A reusable rocket must be more robust to do what it do while also being much more difficult to accomplish. It's also how we increase safety, which will happen with rapid reusuability. A reusuable rocket cannot afford to cut corner like an expendable rocket. Just because a rocket is more expensive doesn't mean it's safer. The fact that SpaceX is launching more rockets than everyone else means it will be a safer vehicle due to rapid increase in flight experience. More flights mean we iron out more flight. They're not cutting corners here.