3 ms·
For perspective 2.7B is 0.04% of the entire US budget for 2024. This is a rocket that goes to the moon. If your reaction is "lord help us" then perhaps space
by akira2501 2y ago
For perspective 2.7B is 0.04% of the entire US budget for 2024. This is a rocket that goes to the moon. If your reaction is "lord help us" then perhaps space exploration just isn't in your blood.
- ragebol 2y agoIt's not for the rocket. A moon rocket for 2.7B would be a steal. This is just for a mostly static steel tower (on a mobile carrier?) that holds the rocket up and provides some piping etc to the rocket before launch. The mobile carrier is not included in the price AFAIK, but not sure.
- bewaretheirs 2y agoIt's tower on a large steel platform but it also includes significant GSE (ground support equipment) - cabling and cryogenic plumbing to connect to the rocket to let it be fueled and readied for launch, all connected via mechanical arms to pull the quick disconnects away from the rocket, in some cases into armored boxes to protect against the rocket exhaust. Plus a crew access arm to let astronauts board, elevators so they don't have to climb stairs in their space suits, etc., etc., It is carried around by one of the two existing crawler-transporters, which moves it between the VAB where the rocket is built and the launch pad.
- Animats 2y agoWhat, this isn't even an new crawler/transporter? It's just the gantry and plumbing?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bewaretheirs 2y agoNo need for a new one; the two they built for the Apollo program still work just fine. Note that the crawler-transporter doesn't hang around at the pad during the launch - after setting the mobile launcher down at the pad, it drives away back towards the VAB until it's needed next. During the Apollo era, it also transported the Mobile Service Structure - a tower with work platforms that allowed access to much of the spacecraft on top of the rocket.
- somenameforme 2y agoThis isn't for the rocket, just the structure that it's connected to before launch. Tens of billions of dollars have already been wasted on the rocket. I say "wasted" because it's already essentially obsoleted by the Falcon Heavy which has been ready to go for years, is reliable, and launches at a tiny fraction of the cost. And by the time Starship comes into play you're talking about a Ford Pinto being sold at Lambo Veneno Roadster prices.
- Diederich 2y agoFalcon Heavy, fully expendable, can send about 15,190kg to TLI (Trans Lunar Injection). The Saturn V sent about 48,600kg to TLI. The current SLS can send about 27,000kg to TLI, and block 2 is expected to send between 43,000kg and 47,000kg to TLI. Could the Falcon Heavy be used on a multi-part moon mission? No doubt, but it's not in the same weight class as SLS.
- somenameforme 2y agoThe Falcon Heavy can ship can ship 16.8k kg to Mars [1] and that's at a higher delta V distance/cost than TLI. In general the SLS can carry around 50% more than a Falcon Heavy, but the Falcon Heavy (fully expended) costs 5-10% as much. [1] - https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/falcon-heavy/ https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/falcon-heavy/
- Diederich 2y agoThanks for the clarification. I dug around for numbers but didn't look in the most obvious place! And yes, the cost difference is absolutely staggering.
- pennomi 2y agoI’m honestly shocked more “assemble in orbit” type mission structures haven’t been proposed. Falcon Heavy is just so convenient yet ignored.
- 2y ago
- ceejayoz 2y agoArtemis has cost nearly $100B so far, and with increases like this, that seems unlikely to slow down.
- Animats 2y agoIf Musk wasn't going crazy, it would make sense to kill the SLS.
- LUmBULtERA 2y agoShotwell seems like a solid CEO though? Edit: she’s president and COO apparently. Musk is CEO, nm.
- carabiner 2y agoLOL everyone is thinking she's CEO: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41230320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41230320 also confuses the name/gender, Glenn vs. Gwynne https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39614912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39614912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38863528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38863528
- Diederich 2y agoDo you think Musk's antics are having a notable negative effect on SpaceX? There's no doubt that's the case with Tesla.
- TheAmazingRace 2y agoThis is why Shotwell mostly runs the show at SpaceX. Unlike Tesla, SpaceX runs like well oiled machine and is kicking butt.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Do you think Musk's antics are having a notable negative effect on SpaceX? Absolutely, politically. There is an alternate world in which Musk retained his bipartisan credentials where SpaceX is being handed the Artemis programme.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sidcool 2y agoFair point. Space exploration takes a lot of money. But even that has a limit. $2.7b is like a looooot.