6 ms·

The alternative is the SLS, how many billions down the drain is that? The true issue with the launch was the flight termination system taking 15-30s to trigger

The alternative is the SLS, how many billions down the drain is that? The true issue with the launch was the flight termination system taking 15-30s to trigger, which they have had to requalify since that is what protects the public from harm.

namaria 3y ago
Down the drain? The money has been used to pay people's labor and sourcing materials. That was demand attended to by highly sophisticated supply chains. SLS isn't some stone monument in the desert. It's a huge engineering undertaking.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Yes, a huge portion of the money was down the drain because of the significant waste. It enabled bloated, inefficient companies to stay alive supporting this one massive project. SLS could have been done differently. Instead it was loaded with political favors demanding specific parts/suppliers.
  - namaria 3y ago
    We can only know what was a dead end, waste or bloat in a complex systems pathways in retrospect. I would prefer for humanity's sake to see more avenues of technological advancement pursued rather then only those conforming to some(one's) definition of efficient/correct. SpaceX might be construed to be blowing private investment in some guy's grand vision of space exploration that might turn out to be simply vain. Time will tell. Deriding people exploring the edge of human progress because they don't fit with your values is presumptuous.
- thatjoeoverthr 3y ago
  Cost and value are different things.
  - namaria 3y ago
    Someone's cost is another's value. Money didn't get burned. It moved along in the economy. It moving in ways you disapprove of is no basis to call it wrong. Unless you wanna parse the whole economy and veto things you don't agree with. Let me know how that turns out.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      The government can only spend so much money without things breaking down. When some of that money goes to bloat, that is waste. Despite it still being in the economy. And it's not about some kind of personal approval factor. If the government pays 2x what it could have paid for the same level of quality, that's entirely objective.
      - namaria 3y ago
        If you're being objective with numerical measurements, care to provide source? Bloat = waste, that is just circular logic. You're defining what you want to call waste as a synonym of waste. Nasa gets a budget and spend it on space missions, propulsion technology and launch vehicles. That money employs engineers and scientists and generates demand for high specs engineering firms and supply chains. The bang for the buck is this impact on the economy, stimulating education, R&D etc. Not the rocket that fits your definition of efficiency. Having more then one actively used propulsion vehicle with different technological approaches is a national investment in resilience. Calling it bloat and inefficient because it takes more money per launch then another 100% experimental and unproven platform is incredibly myopic.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        I do not have a source for the generic example number. If you want sources for government spending too much on things, those exist all over. > Calling it bloat and inefficient because it takes more money per launch then another 100% experimental and unproven platform is incredibly myopic. No, that's not what people are saying. The problem is that the main companies NASA contracts to are running in an extremely inefficient way and they get paid more when they waste money. This is a problem that would exist even if SpaceX never became a company. > That money employs engineers and scientists and generates demand for high specs engineering firms and supply chains. The bang for the buck is this impact on the economy, stimulating education, R&D etc. The problem is the dollars that aren't going to engineering and R&D. Dollars that just stimulate the economy are bloat when they're going to some big company out of a budget that's supposed to be doing things like exploring space. If you want to just send out dollars to stimulate the economy, send them out to people with low incomes and they'll have a much bigger impact.
cromwellian 3y ago
Have you looked at what SpaceX promised NASA for HLS? They need to be able to launch it and rapidly refuel it with 13 tankers. They’ve already spent a few billion, by the time they can reliably launch 13 refueling tankers in rapid succession and not destroy their stage 0, we could be taking $10-15 billion in dev costs putting Starship firmly in SLS territory.
- mavhc 3y ago
  Although if all goes well they'll still have all the future starships and engines afterwards. And a system that doesn't cost 100x as much to launch.
simiones 3y ago
And yet, the SLS has flied one successful mission and put something in lunar orbit without a hitch, while Starship failed in so many ways: - it destroyed its pad - it went off course as soon as it left the pad - 8 out of 33 engines failed - one of which immediately after firing (causing it to go off course) We'll see what the future brings, but for now its clearly SLS 1 - Starhsip 0. Given the amount of failures in the Starship exepriment, my bet is that we'll see at least 1 more successful SLS launch before the first Starship launch to reach orbit and back.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  At the same stage in development, SLS also had zero successful launches. So that's not very meaningful.
alexvoda 3y ago
No, there are options between the two extremes. Nasa over engineered pad 39A and now they have a pad that can probably launch anything. But SpaceX with stage 0 did absolutely nothing even though most rockets in history used a diverter of some kind. A simpler and cheaper solution is welcome, but ignoring physics and doing nothing is just baffling (especially for the largest rocket ever). Even RocketLab with their tiny Electron have a diverter. You can see it here: https://youtu.be/P_tGKxL6CLI?t=31 https://youtu.be/P_tGKxL6CLI?t=31

namaria 3y ago

Down the drain? The money has been used to pay people's labor and sourcing materials. That was demand attended to by highly sophisticated supply chains. SLS isn't some stone monument in the desert. It's a huge engineering undertaking.

kortilla 3y ago
Yes, a huge portion of the money was down the drain because of the significant waste. It enabled bloated, inefficient companies to stay alive supporting this one massive project. SLS could have been done differently. Instead it was loaded with political favors demanding specific parts/suppliers.
- namaria 3y ago
  We can only know what was a dead end, waste or bloat in a complex systems pathways in retrospect. I would prefer for humanity's sake to see more avenues of technological advancement pursued rather then only those conforming to some(one's) definition of efficient/correct. SpaceX might be construed to be blowing private investment in some guy's grand vision of space exploration that might turn out to be simply vain. Time will tell. Deriding people exploring the edge of human progress because they don't fit with your values is presumptuous.
thatjoeoverthr 3y ago
Cost and value are different things.
- namaria 3y ago
  Someone's cost is another's value. Money didn't get burned. It moved along in the economy. It moving in ways you disapprove of is no basis to call it wrong. Unless you wanna parse the whole economy and veto things you don't agree with. Let me know how that turns out.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    The government can only spend so much money without things breaking down. When some of that money goes to bloat, that is waste. Despite it still being in the economy. And it's not about some kind of personal approval factor. If the government pays 2x what it could have paid for the same level of quality, that's entirely objective.
    - namaria 3y ago
      If you're being objective with numerical measurements, care to provide source? Bloat = waste, that is just circular logic. You're defining what you want to call waste as a synonym of waste. Nasa gets a budget and spend it on space missions, propulsion technology and launch vehicles. That money employs engineers and scientists and generates demand for high specs engineering firms and supply chains. The bang for the buck is this impact on the economy, stimulating education, R&D etc. Not the rocket that fits your definition of efficiency. Having more then one actively used propulsion vehicle with different technological approaches is a national investment in resilience. Calling it bloat and inefficient because it takes more money per launch then another 100% experimental and unproven platform is incredibly myopic.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        I do not have a source for the generic example number. If you want sources for government spending too much on things, those exist all over. > Calling it bloat and inefficient because it takes more money per launch then another 100% experimental and unproven platform is incredibly myopic. No, that's not what people are saying. The problem is that the main companies NASA contracts to are running in an extremely inefficient way and they get paid more when they waste money. This is a problem that would exist even if SpaceX never became a company. > That money employs engineers and scientists and generates demand for high specs engineering firms and supply chains. The bang for the buck is this impact on the economy, stimulating education, R&D etc. The problem is the dollars that aren't going to engineering and R&D. Dollars that just stimulate the economy are bloat when they're going to some big company out of a budget that's supposed to be doing things like exploring space. If you want to just send out dollars to stimulate the economy, send them out to people with low incomes and they'll have a much bigger impact.

cromwellian 3y ago

Have you looked at what SpaceX promised NASA for HLS? They need to be able to launch it and rapidly refuel it with 13 tankers. They’ve already spent a few billion, by the time they can reliably launch 13 refueling tankers in rapid succession and not destroy their stage 0, we could be taking $10-15 billion in dev costs putting Starship firmly in SLS territory.

mavhc 3y ago
Although if all goes well they'll still have all the future starships and engines afterwards. And a system that doesn't cost 100x as much to launch.

simiones 3y ago

And yet, the SLS has flied one successful mission and put something in lunar orbit without a hitch, while Starship failed in so many ways: - it destroyed its pad - it went off course as soon as it left the pad - 8 out of 33 engines failed - one of which immediately after firing (causing it to go off course) We'll see what the future brings, but for now its clearly SLS 1 - Starhsip 0. Given the amount of failures in the Starship exepriment, my bet is that we'll see at least 1 more successful SLS launch before the first Starship launch to reach orbit and back.

Dylan16807 3y ago
At the same stage in development, SLS also had zero successful launches. So that's not very meaningful.

alexvoda 3y ago

No, there are options between the two extremes. Nasa over engineered pad 39A and now they have a pad that can probably launch anything. But SpaceX with stage 0 did absolutely nothing even though most rockets in history used a diverter of some kind. A simpler and cheaper solution is welcome, but ignoring physics and doing nothing is just baffling (especially for the largest rocket ever). Even RocketLab with their tiny Electron have a diverter. You can see it here: https://youtu.be/P_tGKxL6CLI?t=31 https://youtu.be/P_tGKxL6CLI?t=31