3 ms·

I'd argue that progress for progress' sake is a meaningless goal. Especially when "advance the state of the art" or "industrial grade components" aren't argued

I'd argue that progress for progress' sake is a meaningless goal. Especially when "advance the state of the art" or "industrial grade components" aren't argued as concrete tangible value. When it comes the latter part, defining that value is the essence of the debate. No matter how advanced the technology is, it's just a tool that serves a purpose. Once a business establishes a market dominance, what incentives remain to keep advancing that tech? What guarantees could anyone offer that SpaceX will stay on the "cutting edge" once that point is reached? And how will that impact NASA's ability to make operational choices regarding it's launch capabilities and it's larger mission to foster human exploration of space starting on Earth itself? Finally, we're not discussing CRS-7 or Falcon 9. This is about SLS and it's Starship counterpart and which developed within their shared, particular timeline.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
That's just shifting the goal posts. NASA Administrator Bolden is quoted to have said: “Let’s be very honest,” Bolden said in an interview. “We don’t have a commercially available heavy-lift vehicle. The Falcon 9 Heavy may some day come about. It’s on the drawing board right now. SLS is real.” https://www.houstonchronicle.com/nasa/adrift/2/ https://www.houstonchronicle.com/nasa/adrift/2/
- CaptArmchair 4y ago
  Bolden was sharing his perspective on available technologies here. He wasn't discussing the economics of human deep space-flight and how those tie in with with NASA's mission as a public entity. Sure, I'm astounded by SpaceX's technical prowess and aptitude to reduce the price of human spaceflight by magnitudes. There's no denying that. I'm skeptical about their business model and the potential risks and second-order effects involved in handing a single party the keys of a multi-billion dollar, nation-state sized program to establish a human / U.S. presence on the moon / space. Because that's essentially what many proponents of commercial space flight are implying by directly pointing to Starship as the alternatives that (seemingly already) outclasses SLS.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    Relativity and Blue Origin both have fully reusable vehicles in the pipeline. Rocket Lab has an upcoming design that only reuses the first stage but makes the throwaway second stage exceedingly cheap. SpaceX isn't, and will never be, the only game in town. Unlike the ULA monopoly we had for a good decade.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

That's just shifting the goal posts. NASA Administrator Bolden is quoted to have said: “Let’s be very honest,” Bolden said in an interview. “We don’t have a commercially available heavy-lift vehicle. The Falcon 9 Heavy may some day come about. It’s on the drawing board right now. SLS is real.” https://www.houstonchronicle.com/nasa/adrift/2/ https://www.houstonchronicle.com/nasa/adrift/2/

CaptArmchair 4y ago
Bolden was sharing his perspective on available technologies here. He wasn't discussing the economics of human deep space-flight and how those tie in with with NASA's mission as a public entity. Sure, I'm astounded by SpaceX's technical prowess and aptitude to reduce the price of human spaceflight by magnitudes. There's no denying that. I'm skeptical about their business model and the potential risks and second-order effects involved in handing a single party the keys of a multi-billion dollar, nation-state sized program to establish a human / U.S. presence on the moon / space. Because that's essentially what many proponents of commercial space flight are implying by directly pointing to Starship as the alternatives that (seemingly already) outclasses SLS.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Relativity and Blue Origin both have fully reusable vehicles in the pipeline. Rocket Lab has an upcoming design that only reuses the first stage but makes the throwaway second stage exceedingly cheap. SpaceX isn't, and will never be, the only game in town. Unlike the ULA monopoly we had for a good decade.