4 ms·

This is normal for any new launch vehicle. …which is why it’s often a good idea to not use a new launch vehicle on the critical path for your crewed spacefligh

This is normal for any new launch vehicle. …which is why it’s often a good idea to not use a new launch vehicle on the critical path for your crewed spaceflight program. (Could have used LEO rendezvous of various types to go to the Moon.) https://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html https://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html > 39. The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule: 1) No new launch vehicles. 2) No new launch vehicles. 3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles.

somenameforme 4y ago
The initial SpaceX Falcon rocket was entirely privately funded, at a total cost of of ~$100 million. The first 3 launches were failures. The 4th launch was a success, and the rest is history. And that vessel would ultimately go on (through various again largely privately funded innovations) to revolutionize spaceflight. The same is now true of the Starship, which is again being entirely privately funded. The cost is certainly going to be much more than $100 million, but also nowhere near the absurd extremes of cost that Boeing imposes on the taxpayer. At this point "we" have spent tens of billions of dollars on this catastrophe. And the icing on the cake is that if this monstrosity is ever deemed flight worthy, it will likely already be obsolete. It's quite difficult to understand why giving a company billions of dollars a year, unless they succeed, does not seem to be leading to great outcomes. Maybe we should just give them more money. That'll fix everything.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  > The initial SpaceX Falcon rocket was entirely privately funded, at a total cost of of ~$100 million. And just to put things in perspective: SLS (not Orion, just SLS) is projected to cost a total of $30 Billion The shuttle cost $1.5BN/launch and SLS, forty years later? Over $2BN/launch. Absolute insanity.
  - gsibble 4y ago
    I was downvoted a few weeks ago on a "Rah, rah, rah! Artemis!" post here on HN for pointing out the same a few weeks ago. People on here sure are fickle.

somenameforme 4y ago

The initial SpaceX Falcon rocket was entirely privately funded, at a total cost of of ~$100 million. The first 3 launches were failures. The 4th launch was a success, and the rest is history. And that vessel would ultimately go on (through various again largely privately funded innovations) to revolutionize spaceflight. The same is now true of the Starship, which is again being entirely privately funded. The cost is certainly going to be much more than $100 million, but also nowhere near the absurd extremes of cost that Boeing imposes on the taxpayer. At this point "we" have spent tens of billions of dollars on this catastrophe. And the icing on the cake is that if this monstrosity is ever deemed flight worthy, it will likely already be obsolete. It's quite difficult to understand why giving a company billions of dollars a year, unless they succeed, does not seem to be leading to great outcomes. Maybe we should just give them more money. That'll fix everything.

KennyBlanken 4y ago
> The initial SpaceX Falcon rocket was entirely privately funded, at a total cost of of ~$100 million. And just to put things in perspective: SLS (not Orion, just SLS) is projected to cost a total of $30 Billion The shuttle cost $1.5BN/launch and SLS, forty years later? Over $2BN/launch. Absolute insanity.
- gsibble 4y ago
  I was downvoted a few weeks ago on a "Rah, rah, rah! Artemis!" post here on HN for pointing out the same a few weeks ago. People on here sure are fickle.