3 ms·

To be fair, Apollo also had government funding to the tune of approximately 2.5% of GDP. Starship would probably go a bit faster too with an annual budget of ha

by mrec 3y ago

To be fair, Apollo also had government funding to the tune of approximately 2.5% of GDP. Starship would probably go a bit faster too with an annual budget of half a trillion.

mft_ 3y ago
I suspect Starship would also go a lot faster with the weight of the President directly behind it, helping to remove those pesky regulatory issues :)
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  Start of the Apollo program literally precedes the Clean Air Act, establishment of EPA etc. When the government decided to build Kennedy Space Center in Florida wilderness, they just did. No lengthy environmental impact assessment process in the way.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
    Sure, but most of the (anyways rapid) turnaround time from Starship launch #1 to #2 was rebuilding and deluge system .. can't be more than a month or two max delay attributed to regulations.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      True, this was a major engineering obstacle that had to be overcome.
    - mft_ 3y ago
      The pad rebuild and deluge system install was in parallel with the other work. Give or take, it was complete by the end of July [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOtw3ucIKng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOtw3ucIKng
  - vibrolax 3y ago
    Well we have the Canaveral National Seashore to enjoy today, which was constituted from the undeveloped portion of the space program reservation. Otherwise, that area today might be a wall of hirise condos instead of a pristine coastal barrier island.
HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
Perhaps, although not obvious that it's cash starved. NASA's slow but meticulous approach has had a few failures, but also incredible successes such as the sky crane martian rover landing - got to get it right first time, tough to move fast and break things when the test environment is 100 million miles away! Edit: Same goes for 1969's lunar lander - had to work first time.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Seems to be great for deep space missions but not launch vehicles.
  - sbuttgereit 3y ago
    More like it's better with little-noticed science programs which can get by with a minimal amount of politics involved... which to be fair includes the details of deep space missions. Big, flagship projects which attract more attention are where things fall to crap for the most part.
- thmsths 3y ago
  And NASA can be fast too. If I recall the Genesis of the Voyager missions correctly, someone noticed the once in a lifetime opportunity where the planet would align properly for a probe to visit a lot of them in using clever gravity assists. And from there NASA acted quickly to get funding, design and launch 2 probes that are still active today!
johnyzee 3y ago
Still very impressive. We all know that adding more resources to a project does not necessarily make it go faster.

by mrec 3y ago

To be fair, Apollo also had government funding to the tune of approximately 2.5% of GDP. Starship would probably go a bit faster too with an annual budget of half a trillion.

mft_ 3y ago

I suspect Starship would also go a lot faster with the weight of the President directly behind it, helping to remove those pesky regulatory issues :)

inglor_cz 3y ago
Start of the Apollo program literally precedes the Clean Air Act, establishment of EPA etc. When the government decided to build Kennedy Space Center in Florida wilderness, they just did. No lengthy environmental impact assessment process in the way.
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
  Sure, but most of the (anyways rapid) turnaround time from Starship launch #1 to #2 was rebuilding and deluge system .. can't be more than a month or two max delay attributed to regulations.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    True, this was a major engineering obstacle that had to be overcome.
  - mft_ 3y ago
    The pad rebuild and deluge system install was in parallel with the other work. Give or take, it was complete by the end of July [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOtw3ucIKng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOtw3ucIKng
- vibrolax 3y ago
  Well we have the Canaveral National Seashore to enjoy today, which was constituted from the undeveloped portion of the space program reservation. Otherwise, that area today might be a wall of hirise condos instead of a pristine coastal barrier island.

HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago

Perhaps, although not obvious that it's cash starved. NASA's slow but meticulous approach has had a few failures, but also incredible successes such as the sky crane martian rover landing - got to get it right first time, tough to move fast and break things when the test environment is 100 million miles away! Edit: Same goes for 1969's lunar lander - had to work first time.

fallingknife 3y ago
Seems to be great for deep space missions but not launch vehicles.
- sbuttgereit 3y ago
  More like it's better with little-noticed science programs which can get by with a minimal amount of politics involved... which to be fair includes the details of deep space missions. Big, flagship projects which attract more attention are where things fall to crap for the most part.
thmsths 3y ago
And NASA can be fast too. If I recall the Genesis of the Voyager missions correctly, someone noticed the once in a lifetime opportunity where the planet would align properly for a probe to visit a lot of them in using clever gravity assists. And from there NASA acted quickly to get funding, design and launch 2 probes that are still active today!

johnyzee 3y ago

Still very impressive. We all know that adding more resources to a project does not necessarily make it go faster.