5 ms·

I don't see anywhere in your citation how much of that money has been dispensed, or for what milestones. $2.89 Billion would have paid for exactly one shuttle

I don't see anywhere in your citation how much of that money has been dispensed, or for what milestones. $2.89 Billion would have paid for exactly one shuttle launch (https://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-30-years.html https://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-...). Sounds like a deal to me. > That's still suborbital flight You're just making yourself look silly here. Folks who regularly report on space like Scott Manley have spoken at length about the difficulties in achieving orbit and consider Starship to have done so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m0TY6i1Kuo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m0TY6i1Kuo An orbit regularizing burn is not a large obstacle compared to achieving orbital veloticy. The delta-v involved is minuscule. > Project Apollo was way further by their fourth flight Project Apollo operated under different engineering principles which emphasized extra expenditure prior to flight to attempt to ensure successful flights. Starship is being engineered through flight-testing which is closer to how the Russian space program did things. Flying rockets is less expensive than spending endless engineer hours testing on the ground and for something the size and flight profile of Starship, no ground testing can ever fully simulate the forces involved. You're either ill informed, or starting with a conclusion and reaching for things to justify it.

scotty79 2y ago
> I don't see anywhere in your citation how much of that money has been dispensed, or for what milestones. I don't think milestones are public but I can guess that there was some money up front and that some money was attached to Starship launches. That actually explains why SpaceX is sending barely ready empty tubes on ballistic trajectories for no sensible reason whatsoever. And does stupid checkbox things like "opening bay doors" that barely work, even though there's nothing on both sides. > $2.89 Billion would have paid for exactly one shuttle launch (https://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost- https://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-...). Sounds like a deal to me. Depends if you are actually getting the thing or just brief illusion of hope of getting some part of the thing. When it comes to realistic estimates I'd trust Bezos over Musk any day. And Musk outbid him hugely. > An orbit regularizing burn is not a large obstacle compared to achieving orbital veloticy. It is a key thing if you never re-lit your engines in vacuum and zero-g. They broke and exploded in earlier flights after relighting in way more favorable conditions. > Flying rockets is less expensive than spending endless engineer hours testing on the ground and for something the size and flight profile of Starship, no ground testing can ever fully simulate the forces involved. That would have been true. If SpaceX had computers Russians had in the 60-ties. Ability for modelling and simulations and to test things properly on the ground skyrocketed (pun intended) over last few decades. Be real with yourself. Don't but those excuses. They are half-assing it for the grant money they need rather sooner than later. And don't start high-and-mighty ad hominem at me. It serves no purpose. I'm dead inside. Also watch some Thunderf00t between your Scott Manley-s.
- timschmidt 2y ago
  > I'm dead inside. No kidding? > Also watch some Thunderf00t Somehow I knew that tool was your "source". He's never done anything but complain on the internet, often parroting outright falsehoods. Watch his videos from a few years back and compare his bullshit with what actually happened. Huffing that stuff will kill your brain cells. Scott works in the engineering professions. > I'd trust Bezos over Musk any day. I'd welcome another vendor of reusable rockets. Really love Rocketlab and Stoke who are doing same. Still waiting on Bezos though. I hope he succeeds. Meanwhile, SpaceX keeps launching and breaking records. > It is a key thing if you never re-lit your engines in vacuum and zero-g. Like they did for the landing burn? Yeah, they checked that one off the list already. Firing ullage thrusters before lighting engines is technically rocket science, but not the hard part. > I can guess that there was some money up front This isn't pictionary. Guesses don't count. > Ability for modelling and simulations and to test things properly And SpaceX has the best simulation software in the business: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYA0f6R5KAI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYA0f6R5KAI It is not sufficient to molecularly model a system as large and complex as Starship, nor as fast as building and flying a rocket.
  - scotty79 2y ago
    > Somehow I knew that tool was your "source". He's never done anything but complain on the internet, often parroting outright falsehoods. He also does actual scientific research. And in a decade no thing he called bullshit ever turned out to be anything close to what was being advertised. And you are seriously going to accuse him of parroting while you re-post Musk's apologetics verbatim? Do you think I haven't seen "it's good actually, ground breaking even, everybody who says otherwise is incompetent, some smart people cheer for it and you can't simulate everything" arguments? > Watch his videos from a few years back and compare his bullshit with what actually happened. Care to share specifics? What was he ultimately wrong on? > Scott works in the engineering professions. Scott is affable enthusiast, fellow gamer and software developer. Also astrophysicist. I like him. Has some good points that Thunderf00t misses. None actually contradict the criticism. > Still waiting on Bezos though. Bezos isn't working on anything like Starship because he didn't get the grant because he assessed (imho correctly) that it requires many times higher budget and longer timelines. Musk just overpromised as always and will underdeliver as (nearly?) always. He's already underdelivering because he's behind all published schedules for what he's doing. > Like they did for the landing burn? Landing burn was done in both gravity (from air breaking) and atmosphere. Also they had a pile of experience in doing landing burn so not screwing that up is not really an achievement. The only impressive thing about it is that they managed to do it with the second stage. Which means in only half-melted on re-entry and didn't tumble with engines forward like on the previous "flight". > This isn't pictionary. Guesses don't count. Right... no guessing allowed. You eat up and find out it was crap only after a full plate. Because smell is not always reliable. > And SpaceX has the best simulation software in the business Right, you still need to know how to use it and actually use it. It perfectly explains why their engines work at all. Apart from that, it's way simpler just to fling an empty pipe to the border of space for added benefit that it technically meets some milestone and you get cash shower you desperately need.

scotty79 2y ago

> I don't see anywhere in your citation how much of that money has been dispensed, or for what milestones. I don't think milestones are public but I can guess that there was some money up front and that some money was attached to Starship launches. That actually explains why SpaceX is sending barely ready empty tubes on ballistic trajectories for no sensible reason whatsoever. And does stupid checkbox things like "opening bay doors" that barely work, even though there's nothing on both sides. > $2.89 Billion would have paid for exactly one shuttle launch (https://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost- https://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-...). Sounds like a deal to me. Depends if you are actually getting the thing or just brief illusion of hope of getting some part of the thing. When it comes to realistic estimates I'd trust Bezos over Musk any day. And Musk outbid him hugely. > An orbit regularizing burn is not a large obstacle compared to achieving orbital veloticy. It is a key thing if you never re-lit your engines in vacuum and zero-g. They broke and exploded in earlier flights after relighting in way more favorable conditions. > Flying rockets is less expensive than spending endless engineer hours testing on the ground and for something the size and flight profile of Starship, no ground testing can ever fully simulate the forces involved. That would have been true. If SpaceX had computers Russians had in the 60-ties. Ability for modelling and simulations and to test things properly on the ground skyrocketed (pun intended) over last few decades. Be real with yourself. Don't but those excuses. They are half-assing it for the grant money they need rather sooner than later. And don't start high-and-mighty ad hominem at me. It serves no purpose. I'm dead inside. Also watch some Thunderf00t between your Scott Manley-s.

timschmidt 2y ago
> I'm dead inside. No kidding? > Also watch some Thunderf00t Somehow I knew that tool was your "source". He's never done anything but complain on the internet, often parroting outright falsehoods. Watch his videos from a few years back and compare his bullshit with what actually happened. Huffing that stuff will kill your brain cells. Scott works in the engineering professions. > I'd trust Bezos over Musk any day. I'd welcome another vendor of reusable rockets. Really love Rocketlab and Stoke who are doing same. Still waiting on Bezos though. I hope he succeeds. Meanwhile, SpaceX keeps launching and breaking records. > It is a key thing if you never re-lit your engines in vacuum and zero-g. Like they did for the landing burn? Yeah, they checked that one off the list already. Firing ullage thrusters before lighting engines is technically rocket science, but not the hard part. > I can guess that there was some money up front This isn't pictionary. Guesses don't count. > Ability for modelling and simulations and to test things properly And SpaceX has the best simulation software in the business: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYA0f6R5KAI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYA0f6R5KAI It is not sufficient to molecularly model a system as large and complex as Starship, nor as fast as building and flying a rocket.
- scotty79 2y ago
  > Somehow I knew that tool was your "source". He's never done anything but complain on the internet, often parroting outright falsehoods. He also does actual scientific research. And in a decade no thing he called bullshit ever turned out to be anything close to what was being advertised. And you are seriously going to accuse him of parroting while you re-post Musk's apologetics verbatim? Do you think I haven't seen "it's good actually, ground breaking even, everybody who says otherwise is incompetent, some smart people cheer for it and you can't simulate everything" arguments? > Watch his videos from a few years back and compare his bullshit with what actually happened. Care to share specifics? What was he ultimately wrong on? > Scott works in the engineering professions. Scott is affable enthusiast, fellow gamer and software developer. Also astrophysicist. I like him. Has some good points that Thunderf00t misses. None actually contradict the criticism. > Still waiting on Bezos though. Bezos isn't working on anything like Starship because he didn't get the grant because he assessed (imho correctly) that it requires many times higher budget and longer timelines. Musk just overpromised as always and will underdeliver as (nearly?) always. He's already underdelivering because he's behind all published schedules for what he's doing. > Like they did for the landing burn? Landing burn was done in both gravity (from air breaking) and atmosphere. Also they had a pile of experience in doing landing burn so not screwing that up is not really an achievement. The only impressive thing about it is that they managed to do it with the second stage. Which means in only half-melted on re-entry and didn't tumble with engines forward like on the previous "flight". > This isn't pictionary. Guesses don't count. Right... no guessing allowed. You eat up and find out it was crap only after a full plate. Because smell is not always reliable. > And SpaceX has the best simulation software in the business Right, you still need to know how to use it and actually use it. It perfectly explains why their engines work at all. Apart from that, it's way simpler just to fling an empty pipe to the border of space for added benefit that it technically meets some milestone and you get cash shower you desperately need.