3 ms·

Even accounting for exploded rockets (which make up a minority of SpaceX's 234 launches), I'd argue it's still a better deal for the taxpayer than cathedral-sty

Even accounting for exploded rockets (which make up a minority of SpaceX's 234 launches), I'd argue it's still a better deal for the taxpayer than cathedral-style rocket programs which will cost taxpayers even more despite launching a fraction as often and producing data of minimal usefulness due to the lack of new ground being tread.

larkost 3y ago
While I think that that the setup around SpaceX is better than etc format we have done before, I don't think it is much less of a "cathedral" model. Really the only changes in that model are that now there is a second "cathedral" (SpaceX) next to the other one (United Launch Services), and that "cathedral" is managed a bit differently (less direct government/service-buyer control). Both are controlled top-down. It is nice that there are other players around this space (Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, etc...), but all of them are currently aiming at much smaller payloads (than Falcon 9), or sub-orbital payloads. Those are different spaces.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > It is nice that there are other players around this space (Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, etc...), but all of them are currently aiming at much smaller payloads (than Falcon 9) Of SpaceX's future competitors, almost all of them are aiming at larger payloads than Falcon 9. * Vulcan: larger or smaller depending on how many SRBs * New Glenn: larger * Terran R: larger * Neutron: smaller
- kitsunesoba 3y ago
  Perhaps my choice of terminology was wrong… when I said "cathedral style" I was intending to reference extremely expensive long-tail projects that aim for perfection on the first go, similar to SLS — a generational masterpiece, much like a cathedral, as opposed to a cheaper, quicker, more iterative approach that aims to be useful while growing out of its early stage limitations.

3 ms·

Even accounting for exploded rockets (which make up a minority of SpaceX's 234 launches), I'd argue it's still a better deal for the taxpayer than cathedral-sty

by kitsunesoba 3y ago

larkost 3y ago
While I think that that the setup around SpaceX is better than etc format we have done before, I don't think it is much less of a "cathedral" model. Really the only changes in that model are that now there is a second "cathedral" (SpaceX) next to the other one (United Launch Services), and that "cathedral" is managed a bit differently (less direct government/service-buyer control). Both are controlled top-down. It is nice that there are other players around this space (Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, etc...), but all of them are currently aiming at much smaller payloads (than Falcon 9), or sub-orbital payloads. Those are different spaces.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > It is nice that there are other players around this space (Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, etc...), but all of them are currently aiming at much smaller payloads (than Falcon 9) Of SpaceX's future competitors, almost all of them are aiming at larger payloads than Falcon 9. * Vulcan: larger or smaller depending on how many SRBs * New Glenn: larger * Terran R: larger * Neutron: smaller
- kitsunesoba 3y ago
  Perhaps my choice of terminology was wrong… when I said "cathedral style" I was intending to reference extremely expensive long-tail projects that aim for perfection on the first go, similar to SLS — a generational masterpiece, much like a cathedral, as opposed to a cheaper, quicker, more iterative approach that aims to be useful while growing out of its early stage limitations.