18 ms·
Good. With both Blue Origin and Space-X having flown heavy boosters, there's no need for a US$2 billion per launch Boeing booster, even if it works.
by Animats 2y ago
Good. With both Blue Origin and Space-X having flown heavy boosters, there's no need for a US$2 billion per launch Boeing booster, even if it works.
- idontwantthis 2y agoI agree, but there’s no way to divorce this from Musk’s hand controlling our government. It should have been cancelled years ago, but the motive matters.
- thomquaid 2y agoThe motive is Boeing didnt deliver, doesnt deliver, and cannot deliver.
- sambull 2y agoNeither has SpaceX; we have two contracts that have missed deadlines.
- cowsaymoo 2y agoI can't find it anymore but someone made a site overlaying all of Elon Musk's outrageous project timeline goals as if they were serious
- Nevermark 2y agoThis is such a cliche, not to mention inevitable pattern, for any ambitious research or development project if any date is mentioned. But we all want to talk about dates anyway, so we get “delays” that are not delays at all because the dates are never, could never, be real. A better way is to look at ambitious date projections as targets. If we don’t talk about dates, we feel less pressure and go even slower. But if we talk about dates, we get some urgency even when we miss them. “Target date” is a good phrase that communicates we know we can’t beat that date, but if absolutely everything went to plan, we might hit it, so we are going to try for it. Knowing that as long as we keep having to learn anything whatsoever, we are going to have a moving target.
- Nevermark 2y ago> two contracts that have missed deadlines. Just two. Wow. That’s an unprecedented track record in the space industry. Every industry has different critical indicators. “Late” doesn’t mean much here. Even routine individual launches are often scheduled as “NET” or “No Earlier Than”. For major new rocket designs, it’s a lot like me and social events. “If I’m not late, I’m not coming!”
- tim333 2y agoSpaceX may not have done everything but they've delivered a lot.
- idontwantthis 2y agoIt’s naive to look at it one dimensionally.
- bushbaba 2y agoAssuming they contract out to both those venders. Having a single vendor win the contracts lead to this mess to begin with
- skissane 2y agoI think Jared Isaacman's closeness to Musk gives him added motivation to award contracts to non-SpaceX vendors (once he's confirmed), because he'll seek to disprove claims he's biased in favor of SpaceX
- Arainach 2y ago....because there's tons of precedent for the Trump Administration, GOP courts, or voters to punish in any way raw corruption or profiteering?
- sho_hn 2y agoI see no evidence that "keeping up appearances" toward critics has been a priority for anyone else in the last two weeks.
- LorenDB 2y agoYou're getting downvotes, but I agree that Isaacman isn't likely to favor SpaceX. The space community in general is very supportive of him, and he's shown a great interest in spaceflight regardless of who's launching the rockets. Also keep in mind that his previous missions realistically were only possible via SpaceX whether he liked them or not. Starliner was not (and is still not) ready, Orion isn't ready and is for NASA only anyway, and Russia/China aren't going to work well for geopolitical reasons. SpaceX is the only company left who has the capability to lob you into orbit.
- ChiefEngineer 2y agoThat depends on the application. If we are talking safety critical human space flight SLS would be preferable over SpaceX.
- hodgesrm 2y agoWait, you mean the SLS that could not bring astronauts back from the International Space Station? It's nine months in and they are still up there.
- hodgesrm 2y agoOops, that's Starliner. Still...It would be perhaps better for Boeing to get out of rockets entirely and focus on fixing their commercial airline business.
- sho_hn 2y agoYou're confusing things. The mission you are referring to was flown using the Boeing Starliner capsule, launched atop a Atlas V N22 rocket. Not the SLS or Orion.
- baggy_trough 2y agoHow can that possibly be true?
- xeromal 2y agoI mean one is actually flying right now and one ain't
- lostlogin 2y agoYou’re picking Boeing for their safety record? Why is that?
- dapperdrake 2y agoCaution went out the door.
- deleted 2y ago
- someperson 2y agoSLS is super heavy class like Starship. It deploys about 100 tons to orbit in Block 1 configuration. New Glenn deploys half that. Closer to a Falcon Heavy. You can't really do a moon program without a super heavy rocket.
- SoftTalker 2y agoWhy do we need a moon program?
- vFunct 2y agoGrow the economy through the advancement of technology. A good way to be poor is to not advance technology.
- SoftTalker 2y agoWhy should the government pay for it? If there’s an economically viable reason to have a moon program, let private enterprise take that on.
- Spartan-S63 2y agoThat’s a great way to never expand the frontier of knowledge. We don’t know the returns on the investment of a Moon program ahead of time, but exploration drives human knowledge forward. If we only ever funded things that had a clear economically viable reason, we would have never progressed past steam technology. Think of space exploration as basic research. It’s fundamental to moving human knowledge forward and that should be worth any price.
- vFunct 2y agoPrivate enterprise doesn’t advance advanced technology because they are constrained by profit requirement. It’s impossible for private enterprise to do so because of that. That’s why we rely on government to advance literal moonshot programs. Space-X can’t even do this without government funding.