4 ms·
How many versions of Starship did Space X explode or crash? They seem to have produced better results on less money — so if NASA can’t follow the strategy that
by zmgsabst 4y ago
How many versions of Starship did Space X explode or crash?
They seem to have produced better results on less money — so if NASA can’t follow the strategy that works, why should we throw more into the money pit?
- mavhc 4y agoSpaceX want to produce the least rocket they need, NASA want 0 failures, so they'll always have too much rocket Also SpaceX plan to make 1000 Starships, and NASA plans to make about 5 of theirs
- dotnet00 4y agoUnfortunately NASA doesn't have the ability to even appear to fail explosively while SpaceX can afford to laugh about it. Any significant explosion would have the tech illiterate Congress breathing down their necks.
- Majromax 4y ago> Unfortunately NASA doesn't have the ability to even appear to fail explosively while SpaceX can afford to laugh about it. It's the curse of waterfall budgeting. A democratic government with typical constraints wants to minimize spending and to have all spending fully accounted for in advance. "I dunno, maybe it will blow up this time?" is not an acceptable line-item under either standard. Therefore, budgets must plan for success and design failure out of the process. Minimizing risk maximizes process and cost, ironically sacrificing the very low-cost public policy goal at the feet of risk intolerance. Instead of fifty SLS launches, of which the first dozen or so might fail as learning experiences, we get five that all must go flawlessly. True "risky" development is reserved for programs of true national urgency (e.g. the original defense focus of the space race) or for programs that can operate well outside the public's watchful eye.
- sashahrzg 4y agoThis. This right here. I absolutely hate seeing the two compared. They're doing two very different things with two very different goals.
- zmgsabst 4y agoWhat do you think is different about their goals?
- sashahrzg 4y agoSpaceX is a profit motivated company with large degrees of flexibility. They move fast and break ships. NASA is a research institution focused on scientific advancement and space research. They also are very rigid due to the way they receive funding. NASA cannot afford to move to a starship style system because the SLS contract was locked in.
- bottlepalm 4y agoAll that scientific advancement to end up 50 years later with a Moon vehicle not much more different than Apollo.
- dotnet00 4y agoTheir goals are similar, NASA is just hamstrung by Congress and the general public. If NASA had the freedom to choose its direction they too would be working on a Starship style rocket by now, not attempting to pass off a dinosaur as modern.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago> NASA is just hamstrung by Congress and the general public I don't think you can assert that NASA hasn't or wouldn't fall to Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy. What makes NASA special to be immune to such dysfunction?
- p_l 4y agoOr they might have ran their original design of STS instead of one hamstrung and made hilariously expensive due to contract with DoD
- wffurr 4y ago>> why should we throw more into the money pit? You don’t get to decide where the money goes at all. Senators do so they can boast about bringing jobs to their state in reelection campaigns.