3 ms·

The point you are trying to make is that that government is unlikely to succeed in terms of timeframe or budget, and that is probably true. Yet, your argument d

by nwah1 4y ago

The point you are trying to make is that that government is unlikely to succeed in terms of timeframe or budget, and that is probably true. Yet, your argument doesn't support that point. SLS is also a project that is built by private corporations. SLS vs Falcon Heavy is simply a battle between two different government contractors. One is not more government-based than the other.

nrb 4y ago
Research how and where SLS must be designed, manufactured, integrated, and tested. Then research who designated that process and how. Calling Falcon Heavy and SLS equivalently government-led is laughable. The amount of by-design government red tape and congressional district handouts is astounding.
- nwah1 4y ago
  SLS is a joint project between many large bureaucratic private organizations, and thus design-by-committee is more of a function of the way that those institutions operate, and their need to coordinate with one another. Congress cared that it met payload requirements and mission requirements. That these institutions were unable to deliver within reasonable time and budget limits is a result of their own dysfunction. Since rocket production is extremely capital-intensive, the market is very thin. The number of players capable of even giving it a go is low. And thus, it has all the hallmarks of a typical market failure. Private companies the entire time could've realized the potential profits and competently worked to achieve them, even outside of begging for government contracts. That they didn't do this for many decades is their own fault.
  - nrb 4y ago
    > Congress cared that it met payload requirements and mission requirements. This is just not correct if you mean that they only cared about payload and mission requirements. Congress mandated that certain technologies were to be used from non-competitive, single-source suppliers in order to prop up industry in particular congressional districts. Cost overruns are practically by-design because as long as it doesn’t raise too many eyebrows it’s just more money to their local industry and constituents.
    - nwah1 4y ago
      It isn't as if there was this long line of sad rocket companies waiting out in the cold, shut out of their dreams of outer space by the mean old government. There simply weren't any others except for the go-to contractors that NASA always relied on. Now that there is a critical mass of billionaire nerds and venture capitalists who want to build rocket companies, there is now competition in this sector. It is a case of monopoly vs competition. That is the real answer.
CrazyStat 4y ago
> SLS vs Falcon Heavy is simply a battle between two different government contractors. One is not more government-based than the other. This is completely false. SLS was established by Congress with various mandates on the technology and process to design and build it. Falcon Heavy was not. Many of the issues with SLS can be traced to Congress's requirements that they put on the project, like forcing it to reuse 50-year-old STS technology.
- nwah1 4y ago
  If congress asked Intel to build a computer meeting specifications from 50 years ago, regardless of how stupid that request is, and they somehow failed to do that in a resonable amount of time or budget... it would be an astounding display of incompetence. And failing to even try to create a new showcase technology of something better is just additional incompetence.
  - CrazyStat 4y ago
    That may be true, but it's orthogonal to the truth of the original statement that the SLS program was not more government-based than Falcon Heavy. SpaceX over the last two decades has been a superb illustration of the value of private enterprise.
dotnet00 4y ago
You're confidently incorrect to be claiming that one is not more government-based than the other. SLS follows the old model of NASA contracting where NASA sets all the design requirements and the contractor follows them (ie the choice of solid boosters, the use of Shuttle technology etc was all set by NASA and the final vehicle is owned and operated by NASA). The contractor is effectively given a blueprint and asked to build it, with all construction costs covered. This is in strong contrast to F9 and FH which follow the new model where the government only sets the rough requirements (payload capacity, target orbits, vibration tolerances etc) but doesn't care about the specific details (beyond making sure that they make technical sense). Payments are made for reaching specific milestones, how that relates to internal costs is entirely on the contractor and the final vehicle is still owned and operated by the contractor, with NASA acting as just another client. It's a much more hands off approach compared to SLS.

by nwah1 4y ago

nrb 4y ago

Research how and where SLS must be designed, manufactured, integrated, and tested. Then research who designated that process and how. Calling Falcon Heavy and SLS equivalently government-led is laughable. The amount of by-design government red tape and congressional district handouts is astounding.

nwah1 4y ago
SLS is a joint project between many large bureaucratic private organizations, and thus design-by-committee is more of a function of the way that those institutions operate, and their need to coordinate with one another. Congress cared that it met payload requirements and mission requirements. That these institutions were unable to deliver within reasonable time and budget limits is a result of their own dysfunction. Since rocket production is extremely capital-intensive, the market is very thin. The number of players capable of even giving it a go is low. And thus, it has all the hallmarks of a typical market failure. Private companies the entire time could've realized the potential profits and competently worked to achieve them, even outside of begging for government contracts. That they didn't do this for many decades is their own fault.
- nrb 4y ago
  > Congress cared that it met payload requirements and mission requirements. This is just not correct if you mean that they only cared about payload and mission requirements. Congress mandated that certain technologies were to be used from non-competitive, single-source suppliers in order to prop up industry in particular congressional districts. Cost overruns are practically by-design because as long as it doesn’t raise too many eyebrows it’s just more money to their local industry and constituents.
  - nwah1 4y ago
    It isn't as if there was this long line of sad rocket companies waiting out in the cold, shut out of their dreams of outer space by the mean old government. There simply weren't any others except for the go-to contractors that NASA always relied on. Now that there is a critical mass of billionaire nerds and venture capitalists who want to build rocket companies, there is now competition in this sector. It is a case of monopoly vs competition. That is the real answer.

CrazyStat 4y ago

> SLS vs Falcon Heavy is simply a battle between two different government contractors. One is not more government-based than the other. This is completely false. SLS was established by Congress with various mandates on the technology and process to design and build it. Falcon Heavy was not. Many of the issues with SLS can be traced to Congress's requirements that they put on the project, like forcing it to reuse 50-year-old STS technology.

nwah1 4y ago
If congress asked Intel to build a computer meeting specifications from 50 years ago, regardless of how stupid that request is, and they somehow failed to do that in a resonable amount of time or budget... it would be an astounding display of incompetence. And failing to even try to create a new showcase technology of something better is just additional incompetence.
- CrazyStat 4y ago
  That may be true, but it's orthogonal to the truth of the original statement that the SLS program was not more government-based than Falcon Heavy. SpaceX over the last two decades has been a superb illustration of the value of private enterprise.

dotnet00 4y ago

You're confidently incorrect to be claiming that one is not more government-based than the other. SLS follows the old model of NASA contracting where NASA sets all the design requirements and the contractor follows them (ie the choice of solid boosters, the use of Shuttle technology etc was all set by NASA and the final vehicle is owned and operated by NASA). The contractor is effectively given a blueprint and asked to build it, with all construction costs covered. This is in strong contrast to F9 and FH which follow the new model where the government only sets the rough requirements (payload capacity, target orbits, vibration tolerances etc) but doesn't care about the specific details (beyond making sure that they make technical sense). Payments are made for reaching specific milestones, how that relates to internal costs is entirely on the contractor and the final vehicle is still owned and operated by the contractor, with NASA acting as just another client. It's a much more hands off approach compared to SLS.