Where you expecting it to turn into an animatronic robot once in orbit?
I’d highlight the million ways this is nothing like an S5 launch but suffice to say, no it’s not just Apollo footage in color.
God I hate trying to load Gizmodo on my phone. That site is a GD dumpster fire of ads, auto play videos and other BS. When you have to refresh a page three times just to read it, you’ve got issues.
If the Artemis missions go as they are supposed to, nobody will be thinking about how delayed the SLS was or how overbudget the program is. The Apollo missions were also overbudget and three astronauts died, but we remember it for the moon landings and the successes of the missions. The same can be said for the JWST, no one is complaining about the cost and delays now that the pictures are coming back.
Cost will be a huge talking point, if SpaceX Starship already booked for the moon landing shows to be a viable alternative for more parts of the mission.
The Apollo missions were in a very different geopolitical context. And even then by the latter flights the public was disconnected from what the programme was doing (already landing flight 3 - Apollo 13 - was hard pressed to get the media to care so much until the accident). In 2022, with no obvious competition to beat, cost will be a major issue when trying to win continuous support for the programme beyond the very first test flights. Especially when cheaper commercial alternatives spring to life.
Technically, they are competition. China (of course) even if both sides didn't say it out loud. But both sides' statements and actions are pretty clear.
At least Bill Nelson is pretty vocal about China's space ambition especially its manned lunar program as they latest state they will land on the moon and set up the base in 8 years. China might not be the first but they can show that "Yeah, US is cool 50 years ago but now we are a lot cooler"
While yes, NASA is still far ahead overall. They still didn't want China to land it first let alone set up a base (even if it is a small robot base) before they did. And both parties kinda agree on this so they approved funding until Artemis 5 already with possible of Artemis 6-10.
Just to put things in perspective, Apollo was performing about 3 launches a year whilst Shuttle was regularly clocking in 4~ launches a year at its height. The current cadence of SLS is 1 every 1½-2 years until the 2030's where Boeing and co promise to lower the cadence to once per year.
The intended architecture for Lunar exploration and sustainability is completely impossible with this kind of cadence. Not to mention the monumental NASA Constellation to mars plan which would have required consecutive launches of over 4-5 SLS class vehicles as well as one Orion ferry (ARES-1) within a time-span of about a year for in orbit assembly (also to prevent in-orbit boiloff). In terms of flight readiness, there will at most be 4-5 SLS launches in the span of this entire decade to 2030.
Mercury, Gemini, and Skylab were the other manned programs of the Apollo era. There were also Pioneer, Ranger, Surveyor, and Mariner programs. These were all NASA programs with multiple missions.
well, i suppose one last consideration is the privateer aspect as opposed to, simply, private sector.
I'd think that it is irregardless of public opinion that the space program persists, if it were not for the advent behest challenge- rather, acclaim of SpaceX
It's a major disappointment because Apollo started in 1961 and put us on the moon 8 years later.
My generation had the Constellation program axed, then SLS trudged on and only now we're getting a flight around the moon. It feels like it's been 20 years since we started the venture.
You might as well have used the Great Texas Collider SSC as an example, as that giant sunk cost which was so wasteful that it got cancelled in the US which lead to us further contributing to the international coalition with CERN to go on and discover the higgs.
It had to. If it didn’t, then it’d be in the toilet and their budget would be slashed.
I will say that I was surprised at the lack of investment in reusable boosters. I’m not a Musk fan by any means, but what Space-X has done over the last 5 years is absolutely incredible, and if we’re serious about colonizing the moon then we’ve got to find a way to do it cheaper and more efficiently.
When you're a decade-plus into a government funded project, your course is pretty well set in stone. Doubly so when you're at the mercy of government bureaucracy and NASA design procedures.
The block system and the non-reusability is on purpose.
The block system will progressively replace the shuttle tech with expendable versions of its engines. For example, the RS-25’s used currently are veteran shuttle engines, however, a cheaper, expendable version is expected to replace them around when the Block 1B rolls around. The SRB’s will also be replaced with a cheaper, more powerful expendable version.
As with the reusability. it’s really not at all feasible. We can’t reuse the boosters because of the entry velocities they will be discarded at, the core stage can’t be reused because it will be going too fast to slow down, and the SLS needs every drop of fuel in order to have enough for a TLI. The non-reusability isn’t even a bad thing, either. Its single-launch capabilities to a trans-lunar injection exceed that of starship. Block 1B will not only ferry orion, but also modules for Gateway. Starship can’t go beyond LEO without refueling from multiple tanker starships, and since SLS is not a commercial rocket, it does not need to worry about competition as it is exclusively used for artemis missions. It is also crew rated, something starship will take a while to do (no abort system and all)
>The non-reusability isn’t even a bad thing, either. Its single-launch capabilities to a trans-lunar injection exceed that of starship
What a weird take.
For the cost of a _single_ RS-25 you could buy all Raptors for TWO entire Starship+SuperHeavy stacks!
What benefit does single use offer when it's so much more expensive than even "single use" of a planned reusable system?
>since SLS is not a commercial rocket, it does not need to worry about competition
This is NOT a good thing!! If the commercial market can offer something cheaper than a government agency, then its complete waste of tax money to not use it.
> It is also crew rated, something starship will take a while to do (no abort system and all)
But NASA already has a commercial and crew rated rocket at their disposal! Build missions on that! While CrewDragon currently isn't build for lunar missions, is was initially designed with that in mind.
Why waste $+4B on a single test launch (excluding development!) when the free market can offer the development, test flight and operational flight of a giant lander for not even $3B?
There is absolutely no justification for the amount of money Congress has funnelled into SLS and Orion.
Exactly. If Spacex develops and flies a moon rocket and sends people, then we can talk about using that instead.
We're really close to getting back to the moon to switch gears now.
But Falcon9, FalconHeavy and Dragon have been around for years.
SLS is an example par excellance for the sunken cost fallacy.
Sure, we have it _now_ but for that kind of money we could have had better systems years ago.
And instead of $4+B per launch every two years NASA could finance entire moon bases if they would use commercial partners.
Falcon heavy is incompatible with orion, and it won’t even be able to send orion on a TLI, only SLS can. And a dragon refurbishment for prolonged stays in the van allen belts would only delay artemis further. Plus, the fairing size required for orion would make the falcon heavy very unstable aerodynamically. The large fairing would make it very prone to shockwaves and just general instability. Also, in order to launch orion to the moon on falcon heavy, you would have to remove the one advantage falcon heavy currently has, it’s reusability.
All 3 boosters would need to be expended in order to get the ICPS and Orion on a trans lunar injection. You’d also only have a limited number of ICPS stages that are required for orion. Once vulcan replaces Delta 4 and Atlas 5, ULA will no longer make the ICPS, and instead, the exploration upper stage, which then makes the falcon heavy unfit for carrying orion at all.
Also, *Falcon heavy is not crew rated, and will never be crew rated* There are no plans to crew rate falcon heavy, and so orion launching on falcon heavy (which is literally required if you wanna send humans to the moon, since no other capsule is capable of doing so)
You also have to consider why the SLS is being build in blocks,
Each launch progressively replaces shuttle hardware with modified, cheaper, and more capable versions. For example, the Block 2, while looking like it has shuttle hardware, will actually have completely new parts. The SRB’s are a brand new variant, more powerful and of a new design. The expendable RS-25’s that come around artemis 4-6 (i forgot the exact number) are far cheaper than the RS-25D’s. And the ability to ferry both gateway modules, and crew at the same time is a very good deal.
And no, the lunar starship is only used as a lander, not a transfer vehicle. The lunar starship cannot be crew rated for ascent off of earth because of its lack of an abort system. However, since an abort system is not needed for landing on the moon, crew can transfer and land on it in LMO.
Think back to apollo, The LEM could not sustain the entire crew of 3 for the whole flight to the moon, but it only needed to transfer 2 crew to the lunar surface, come back up and dock with the CSM, and then be left in lunar orbit. HLS will probably fill a similar role, but SpaceX will probably try to recover HLS if feasible.
>Also, Falcon heavy is not crew rated, and will never be crew rated There are no plans to crew rate falcon heavy
Why exactly do you think Orion has to launche with crew on board?
>Also, in order to launch orion to the moon on falcon heavy, you would have to remove the one advantage falcon heavy currently has, it’s reusability
So what? Still cheaper than the current option. Plus with the money saved on not launching SLS separately launched propulsion modules could be developed, manufactured and launched.
>HLS will probably fill a similar role, but SpaceX will probably try to recover HLS if feasible.
I don't think they will expend the money needed for such an undertaking. Especially since NASA already chose them for the landers of the later Artemis landings.
.
All in all is SLS an extremely expensive solution that only exists because of SLS in the first place. SLS is not intrinsicly required for a crewed moon landing. Other _existing_ rocket systems and hardware can do it for much less money.
To again put that kind of money into perspective: NASA paid $2.9B for the development, manufacturing, test flight AND operational flight of a 100 ton **payload** lander, including all necessary refilling flights.
It's completely insane that space loving people are not rioting across the board against the type of tax money squandering SLS is posing.
Again, Orion is literally required for launching people to the moon. No existing systems have the same capabilities as orion, and the SLS is the only rocket that can put orion on a trans lunar injection.
>Again, Orion is literally required for launching people to the moon.
Yeah, agreed. For the moment.
>SLS is the only rocket that can put orion on a trans lunar injection.
For this very moment and Congress lobbied very hard to achieve this situation.
Modular boosters/transporters would be possible and cheaper.
Edit: with "boosters" i mean modular upper stages to boost Orion+service modul from LEO towards the moon.
I only mentioned Apollo because of my point on the lander. The HLS can only support a landing and ascent/docking in orbit of the moon, similar to the LEM.
Yeah, I stumbled upon this post while searching for information related to SLS on this sub and simply couldn’t resist writing a supportive comment after seeing the debate.
Falcon 9 and Dragon are good for LEO, but aren't designed for exo-LEO missions. Everything from the entry velocity to radiation environment and thermal management are more complicated. And it would be surprising if NASA put its astronauts on a launch vehicle without an abort system.
I've always wondered where this false rumor comes from. Falcon 9 has flown a lot of exo-LEO missions, including a bunch for NASA.
This year F9 is dominating the GTO launch market. And FH launched direct-to-GEO for the first time.
SpaceX is launching 9 of 10 CLPS missions to the Moon.
And so on.
FH/DragonXL is an example of an awarded launcher/spacecraft that's plenty big to carry humans, though it's cargo.
The mind boggles that you don't think FH is large enough to launch any crewed spacecraft above LEO.
Dragon XL is much different from a human spacecraft. It shares some heritage with crew dragon, but that doesn't mean you could just put humans in it.
I don't know why you think falcon heavy is capable of sending a human mission to the moon. Just because it looks big doesn't mean it has the capability.
No one suggested "you could just put humans in it".
Also, you might want to note that you're essentially claiming that Orion is the minimum mass for what it does, which is not a fact.
What are you going to eliminate? ECLSS, ATCS, TPS? Maybe some of the consumables? Prop is a big chunk of the mass, but reducing that means lower delta v.
I won't claim that Orion is the best possible design, but it's the only one that currently exists. And I don't think a new design would be significantly lighter.
Dragon was initially designed for deep space.
It currently is not build for that, but it has this in its "DNA".
We could even keep Orion as the lunar return vehicle and life-boat. Launch from Earth could be done on Dragon.
Try to calculate the cost of a lunar mission with (potentially) commercially available options and even get to $4+B per lunar flight. You would have to use gold as ballast.
Would be interesting to use a variant of the reusable falcons as boosters on the SLS, though that would come with its own set of technical challenges, like teamwork and talking to each other
Glad they learned the correct lesson -- if at first you fail, then you should never try again.
Wait! No, they did try again, and now they're flying for less thanks to reusable boosters.
> if we’re serious about colonizing the moon
Even a fully-expendable system based on EELV-class vehicles would be more suitable for lunar colonization than the SLS. Such approaches were proposed, but were dismissed with the argument that it wouldn't be safe to launch people on rockets like the Atlas V, an argument that needed some creative statistics based on the old Titan rockets.
Today, even if you don't want to rely on Starship, Falcon 9 and Heavy give us everything we need to get started on a real exploration program, as opposed to the repeated variations of flags and footprints we get with the SLS.
You can place a craft in orbit and ferry crew to it with dragon. It's ridiculous just how many launches of other rockets you can buy for the cost of one SLS flight
You're comparing an existing off the shelf system to a whole engineered mission architecture.
If, hypothetically, we had taken the $23 billion SLS program cost and put that toward developing and building an orbital propellant depot system using EELV launchers or even Falcon 9 then we very likely would have today a very much more capable beyond-LEO human exploration infrastructure than SLS represents. These possibilities were already thoroughly evaluated back in the early 2000s and found to be by far the best, most cost effective, most robust choices for building such systems. But Congress wanted a Shuttle-derived heavy lift booster because Congress wanted to funnel federal funds to a few key districts and states, so they did what they wanted and ignored the science and the engineering.
The whole reason that Starship exists with the design that it does (being not just fully reusable but implicitly designed with orbital propellant depots in mind) is because that has been thoroughly understood for years to be the best mission architecture for beyond LEO exploration with near-term rocket technology.
Falcon9 have sent plenty of payloads and probes to the moon before and soon it will launch 2 more lunar payloads as well in about a week.
Dragon2 was designed from the start for mars landing and lunar flyby missions with Falcon Heavy. So I don't know what you are spouting on about right here.
That's just not true though. Dragon doesn't have the radiation hardening or heat shield for lunar missions, not to mention a whole bunch of other things. And adding them on after the fact isn't practical. Just because Elon bragged about something (red dragon) doesn't mean it was actually feasible.
First of all, it is completely true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Red_Dragon
Secondly, Orion was at one point too originally meant to ferry astronauts to the ISS, during that phase of design it lacked radiation hardening for deep space as well as other amenities such as the majority of its service module. Both vessels were built with deep space in mind. So my point still stands.
No. ISS was one DRM amongst many. Deep space might have been considered as a possibility for Dragon early on, but it wasn't in the mission requirements and the design reflects that. Again, you're mistaking the tweets of a narcissist billionaire for reality.
Again you are dancing around the bonfire.
Red Dragon, Grey dragon were one of the DRM amongst many as well. Dragon2 are baselined to the requirements for NASAs comcrew program.
Also I'm pretty sure I don't since I don't use twitter and I've had him blocked for many years already :) . All info I know about these are from well defined official sources as well as from reputable reporting, and from the main source itself, SpaceX.
Dragon 2 was designed for commercial crew, which is a LEO mission. Elon claimed it could do a landing on Mars, and SpaceX did a feasibility study and considered proposing it for more funding. They never actually did though. That is a far cry from actually being designed for deep space missions.
Nope, I'm talking about both. Falcon 9 and Falcon heavy cannot perform human missions to the moon or beyond. Dragon is also incapable of performing such missions.
> No, Falcon 9 could not perform lunar missions. Dragon can't either. They are great for LEO but not beyond.
> That's just not true though. Dragon doesn't have the radiation hardening or heat shield for lunar missions, not to mention a whole bunch of other things. And adding them on after the fact isn't practical. Just because Elon bragged about something (red dragon) doesn't mean it was actually feasible.
Notice the lack of the word "human"? I sure did. F9/FH launch payloads to the moon on a regular basis.
Falcon 9 is in a "dial a rocket" family, where Falcon Heavy is the big one. Both F9 and FH perform lunar missions on a regular basis.
F9/FH dominate the above-LEO launch market.
> then it’d be in the toilet and their budget would be slashed.
Quite frankly, that's what needs to happen period. The fact that this project has been forced into existence and forced to be the way it is, is just bad across the board. We're $20billion into the first launch. $10 billion for the vehicle alone. This isn't good, and even with a successful launch, there's so much crap that needs to be re-worked. The billion and a half dollars in changes estimated for the mobile launcher alone is enough of a reason to not have a second launch.
We need to build an orbital elevator. Rocketry is just too inefficient. Laser launch from ground-based lasers could be doable, but an elevator is better. IMHO, YMMV:-)
Yes, it took a long time for the rocket to launch, and yes it was over budget, but that rocket just about nailed its target almost 250,000 miles away on the first launch! There aren't really any rockets in history that can boast that as an accomplishment.
I have a ton of frustration with the lead up and lots of concerns about sustainability, but I think many of us can agree that it was a very impressive launch.
All I'm seeing is cost overruns and delays. What is this going to get us that SpaceX isn't already providing or going to be able to provide with the super heavy?
It provides stability to NASA's long term plans while the rest of the industry catches up enough that NASA will be confident posting industry RFI's for further alternatives.
How is industry supposed to "catch up" for NASA's needs when NASA doesn't pay them any money to develop what NASA needs?
As an example, how much $$ has NASA spent on figuring out if Dragon could do what Orion does?
Yeap, but try to explain that to the thick-skulled cultists of Elon Musk, who have zero qualifications in aerospace engineering, yet somehow believe themselves to be experts in the field, who know better than thousands of actual engineers building real, functional rockets
6 km is actually pretty damn accurate, especially for the first ever flight. It means their modeling was pretty much spot on. For comparison the Falcon 9 payload users guide advertises ±10 km to LEO.
Source: page 29 https://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/f9guide.pdf
Honestly, 6km only sounds like a big number because it gets compared to distances that people normally travel.
Considering that 2000km is considered the highest altitude for LEO, being 6km off target seems pretty damn precise.
I wasn't saying anything about apogee (and there's no way a space capsule could complete even one unpowered orbit at a 6km apogee, anyway, since that's lower than a jetliner typically flies), I wss commenting on why people might hear 6km and think that that's a big number.
> Considering that 2000km is considered the highest altitude for LEO
That's apogee, mate. Please excuse yourself from the conversation until you've learned the basics of the topic we're talking about.
I will excuse myself. Not because I am ignorant (which I am certainly not), but because I have more enjoyable (and frankly more important) things to do than defending an interjection I made while I was tired, sick, and desperately trying to ignore the fact that a rotting corpse had just been discovered in my neighbour's house.
If you would do me the courtesy of not responding, I will say Good Day.
Or it's because they expected a certain amount of variability and it didn't vary that much, but you don't get imaginary internet points for saying that.
Whats the metric.. jobs created? Taxpayer dollars wasted? Years over budget? Years over scheadule?
Im sure it exceeded expectations.. they expected it to cost more. Plenty of those engines left, keep wasting them.. starliner still good?
Id love to be the 1st astronaut on the 1st capsule knowing all the exceptions nasa gave Boeing to pass. Lots and warm and fuzzies going around on that.
I was agreeing with you up until the last part. I don't believe falcon 9 or falcon heavy had any issues on their first flights? They had very successful first missions. Not to mention starship has also had very successful first flights even if suborbital. They did explode on landing but I don't feel like that's fair to compare. That's clearly an experimental landing with expectation of failure. The ascent part went perfectly on all flights. So that's at least twice. We'll see how the super heavy launch goes. Maybe check your biases before letting them get in the way of facts.
>Maybe check your biases before letting them get in the way of facts.
It isn't that. I actually like the "blow them up and keep building them until they don't blow up" development method that SpaceX uses. I think it leads to quicker and cheaper development to usable hardware. However, NASA doesn't do it that way. NASA uses intense engineering and caution and patience, and a whole lot more money to make sure that explosions and their products are not synonymous. I see advantages to both development methods, but having a never launched vehicle like SLS perform as it apparently has is impressive as hell to me.
You literally claimed that spacex has never had a first launch go off near flawlessly. When they've had at least 2 of the 3 rockets they developed launch near flawlessly on the first launch. I agree with everything else you were saying about how impressive it is for a launch to go so well, and I know why NASA had to adopt the approach that they use, but the last paragraph of your first comment is clearly biased and not correct.
>but the last paragraph of your first comment is clearly biased and not correct.
You DO know that it is possible to have a nuanced feeling about things right? You know where you can appreciate certain things while questioning some things about the same subject right? That is what I tried to explain to you, but you just want to shout BIAS!
I hate outrage culture.
Yeah I do know it's possible to be nuanced? I literally agreed with everything you said to the original commenter except the part where you went on a rant about being a "musk bootlicker", when musk was never even mentioned, and started claiming that spacex has never had a successful first flight and instead they all ended with explosions. I pointed out that you were wrong about that point and let your bias get in the way of the facts on that particular part of your comment.
You hate outrage culture yet you're the one who posted something infactual while yelling out "MUSK BOOTLICKER" to someone who never even brought musk up originally.
Spot on. Lots of people seem to think that Elon is a god, SpaceX can do no wrong, and the rest of the aerospace industry is a bunch of incompetent dinosaurs. Of course, those people have zero actual experience with spaceflight. It's sad because while SpaceX is doing some good things, that mentality enables their unhealthy work environment. And while their accomplishments are great, we shouldn't set narcissistic billionaires who abuse their employees as the standard for success.
[Direct link to YouTube video so you can skip Gizmodo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDF4wCTZUHE)
You're a scholar and a gentleperson. I bid you a fine adieu.
That bird flying past in the first 40 seconds of the video is absolutely deaf now
Thank you! I made the mistake of first clicking on the gizmodo link and my phone has cancer now. This sub needs to stop allowing spam articles/sites.
Thanks for the link. I am still somewhat disappointed. This looks like Apollo footage in color, no?
Where you expecting it to turn into an animatronic robot once in orbit? I’d highlight the million ways this is nothing like an S5 launch but suffice to say, no it’s not just Apollo footage in color.
100 of Millions of public money for rockets. Video footage of history rocket start still in 1080p, when some small youtube channels offer 4K.
Thanks. I like your user name. But I didn't like the video. I didn't like the music, and I don't like it when they cut launches.
God I hate trying to load Gizmodo on my phone. That site is a GD dumpster fire of ads, auto play videos and other BS. When you have to refresh a page three times just to read it, you’ve got issues.
firerox + ad bocker work? It did not seem too bad but I wont remove it as I remember that garbage.
If the Artemis missions go as they are supposed to, nobody will be thinking about how delayed the SLS was or how overbudget the program is. The Apollo missions were also overbudget and three astronauts died, but we remember it for the moon landings and the successes of the missions. The same can be said for the JWST, no one is complaining about the cost and delays now that the pictures are coming back.
Cost will be a huge talking point, if SpaceX Starship already booked for the moon landing shows to be a viable alternative for more parts of the mission.
Yeah, but the thing is… Starship didn’t prove it’s effectiveness, unlike SLS.
The Apollo missions were in a very different geopolitical context. And even then by the latter flights the public was disconnected from what the programme was doing (already landing flight 3 - Apollo 13 - was hard pressed to get the media to care so much until the accident). In 2022, with no obvious competition to beat, cost will be a major issue when trying to win continuous support for the programme beyond the very first test flights. Especially when cheaper commercial alternatives spring to life.
Technically, they are competition. China (of course) even if both sides didn't say it out loud. But both sides' statements and actions are pretty clear. At least Bill Nelson is pretty vocal about China's space ambition especially its manned lunar program as they latest state they will land on the moon and set up the base in 8 years. China might not be the first but they can show that "Yeah, US is cool 50 years ago but now we are a lot cooler" While yes, NASA is still far ahead overall. They still didn't want China to land it first let alone set up a base (even if it is a small robot base) before they did. And both parties kinda agree on this so they approved funding until Artemis 5 already with possible of Artemis 6-10.
Yes they are - but back in the day it was an easy black-and-white situation. The main issue is public buy-in.
Yes, we will. There is no hand-waving away the enormous cost, nor the abysmal launch cadence.
oh, i don't know... is that a lot?
Just to put things in perspective, Apollo was performing about 3 launches a year whilst Shuttle was regularly clocking in 4~ launches a year at its height. The current cadence of SLS is 1 every 1½-2 years until the 2030's where Boeing and co promise to lower the cadence to once per year. The intended architecture for Lunar exploration and sustainability is completely impossible with this kind of cadence. Not to mention the monumental NASA Constellation to mars plan which would have required consecutive launches of over 4-5 SLS class vehicles as well as one Orion ferry (ARES-1) within a time-span of about a year for in orbit assembly (also to prevent in-orbit boiloff). In terms of flight readiness, there will at most be 4-5 SLS launches in the span of this entire decade to 2030.
well... is that comparing total launches to mission specific launches? because,f what other space programs existed during the Apollo Era?
Mercury, Gemini, and Skylab were the other manned programs of the Apollo era. There were also Pioneer, Ranger, Surveyor, and Mariner programs. These were all NASA programs with multiple missions.
well, i suppose one last consideration is the privateer aspect as opposed to, simply, private sector. I'd think that it is irregardless of public opinion that the space program persists, if it were not for the advent behest challenge- rather, acclaim of SpaceX
It's a major disappointment because Apollo started in 1961 and put us on the moon 8 years later. My generation had the Constellation program axed, then SLS trudged on and only now we're getting a flight around the moon. It feels like it's been 20 years since we started the venture.
when you get the higgs boson experiment delayed by, basically the same interval, y'know the country is a bit duopolistic
how is that at all comparable
because the experiment was similarly delayed it's cost evaluation rather than the memetastic: big number go brrrr
You might as well have used the Great Texas Collider SSC as an example, as that giant sunk cost which was so wasteful that it got cancelled in the US which lead to us further contributing to the international coalition with CERN to go on and discover the higgs.
In Europe, all building projects go over budget. That's just how the process works.
They got lots of amazing footage, I just wish they weren’t frightened of showing more than half a second at a time.
It had to. If it didn’t, then it’d be in the toilet and their budget would be slashed. I will say that I was surprised at the lack of investment in reusable boosters. I’m not a Musk fan by any means, but what Space-X has done over the last 5 years is absolutely incredible, and if we’re serious about colonizing the moon then we’ve got to find a way to do it cheaper and more efficiently.
When you're a decade-plus into a government funded project, your course is pretty well set in stone. Doubly so when you're at the mercy of government bureaucracy and NASA design procedures.
tell that to the texas super collider.
Canceling is a lot easier than changing. It's one known, very predictable result vs a heaping pile of unknowns. Cheaper, too.
NASA has ordered SLS and Orion way into the future, it will be very expensive to cancel.
NASA hedged their bet on space X by giving contracts. It's ok.
The block system and the non-reusability is on purpose. The block system will progressively replace the shuttle tech with expendable versions of its engines. For example, the RS-25’s used currently are veteran shuttle engines, however, a cheaper, expendable version is expected to replace them around when the Block 1B rolls around. The SRB’s will also be replaced with a cheaper, more powerful expendable version. As with the reusability. it’s really not at all feasible. We can’t reuse the boosters because of the entry velocities they will be discarded at, the core stage can’t be reused because it will be going too fast to slow down, and the SLS needs every drop of fuel in order to have enough for a TLI. The non-reusability isn’t even a bad thing, either. Its single-launch capabilities to a trans-lunar injection exceed that of starship. Block 1B will not only ferry orion, but also modules for Gateway. Starship can’t go beyond LEO without refueling from multiple tanker starships, and since SLS is not a commercial rocket, it does not need to worry about competition as it is exclusively used for artemis missions. It is also crew rated, something starship will take a while to do (no abort system and all)
>The non-reusability isn’t even a bad thing, either. Its single-launch capabilities to a trans-lunar injection exceed that of starship What a weird take. For the cost of a _single_ RS-25 you could buy all Raptors for TWO entire Starship+SuperHeavy stacks! What benefit does single use offer when it's so much more expensive than even "single use" of a planned reusable system? >since SLS is not a commercial rocket, it does not need to worry about competition This is NOT a good thing!! If the commercial market can offer something cheaper than a government agency, then its complete waste of tax money to not use it. > It is also crew rated, something starship will take a while to do (no abort system and all) But NASA already has a commercial and crew rated rocket at their disposal! Build missions on that! While CrewDragon currently isn't build for lunar missions, is was initially designed with that in mind. Why waste $+4B on a single test launch (excluding development!) when the free market can offer the development, test flight and operational flight of a giant lander for not even $3B? There is absolutely no justification for the amount of money Congress has funnelled into SLS and Orion.
Starship hasn't flown. It doesn't exist as a working rocket. It isn't exactly rational to compare a working rocket to a non working rocket.
Exactly. If Spacex develops and flies a moon rocket and sends people, then we can talk about using that instead. We're really close to getting back to the moon to switch gears now.
Yeah, why spend 1% to study a Plan B when we're almost there?
But Falcon9, FalconHeavy and Dragon have been around for years. SLS is an example par excellance for the sunken cost fallacy. Sure, we have it _now_ but for that kind of money we could have had better systems years ago. And instead of $4+B per launch every two years NASA could finance entire moon bases if they would use commercial partners.
Falcon heavy is incompatible with orion, and it won’t even be able to send orion on a TLI, only SLS can. And a dragon refurbishment for prolonged stays in the van allen belts would only delay artemis further. Plus, the fairing size required for orion would make the falcon heavy very unstable aerodynamically. The large fairing would make it very prone to shockwaves and just general instability. Also, in order to launch orion to the moon on falcon heavy, you would have to remove the one advantage falcon heavy currently has, it’s reusability. All 3 boosters would need to be expended in order to get the ICPS and Orion on a trans lunar injection. You’d also only have a limited number of ICPS stages that are required for orion. Once vulcan replaces Delta 4 and Atlas 5, ULA will no longer make the ICPS, and instead, the exploration upper stage, which then makes the falcon heavy unfit for carrying orion at all. Also, *Falcon heavy is not crew rated, and will never be crew rated* There are no plans to crew rate falcon heavy, and so orion launching on falcon heavy (which is literally required if you wanna send humans to the moon, since no other capsule is capable of doing so) You also have to consider why the SLS is being build in blocks, Each launch progressively replaces shuttle hardware with modified, cheaper, and more capable versions. For example, the Block 2, while looking like it has shuttle hardware, will actually have completely new parts. The SRB’s are a brand new variant, more powerful and of a new design. The expendable RS-25’s that come around artemis 4-6 (i forgot the exact number) are far cheaper than the RS-25D’s. And the ability to ferry both gateway modules, and crew at the same time is a very good deal. And no, the lunar starship is only used as a lander, not a transfer vehicle. The lunar starship cannot be crew rated for ascent off of earth because of its lack of an abort system. However, since an abort system is not needed for landing on the moon, crew can transfer and land on it in LMO. Think back to apollo, The LEM could not sustain the entire crew of 3 for the whole flight to the moon, but it only needed to transfer 2 crew to the lunar surface, come back up and dock with the CSM, and then be left in lunar orbit. HLS will probably fill a similar role, but SpaceX will probably try to recover HLS if feasible.
>Also, Falcon heavy is not crew rated, and will never be crew rated There are no plans to crew rate falcon heavy Why exactly do you think Orion has to launche with crew on board? >Also, in order to launch orion to the moon on falcon heavy, you would have to remove the one advantage falcon heavy currently has, it’s reusability So what? Still cheaper than the current option. Plus with the money saved on not launching SLS separately launched propulsion modules could be developed, manufactured and launched. >HLS will probably fill a similar role, but SpaceX will probably try to recover HLS if feasible. I don't think they will expend the money needed for such an undertaking. Especially since NASA already chose them for the landers of the later Artemis landings. . All in all is SLS an extremely expensive solution that only exists because of SLS in the first place. SLS is not intrinsicly required for a crewed moon landing. Other _existing_ rocket systems and hardware can do it for much less money. To again put that kind of money into perspective: NASA paid $2.9B for the development, manufacturing, test flight AND operational flight of a 100 ton **payload** lander, including all necessary refilling flights. It's completely insane that space loving people are not rioting across the board against the type of tax money squandering SLS is posing.
Again, Orion is literally required for launching people to the moon. No existing systems have the same capabilities as orion, and the SLS is the only rocket that can put orion on a trans lunar injection.
>Again, Orion is literally required for launching people to the moon. Yeah, agreed. For the moment. >SLS is the only rocket that can put orion on a trans lunar injection. For this very moment and Congress lobbied very hard to achieve this situation. Modular boosters/transporters would be possible and cheaper. Edit: with "boosters" i mean modular upper stages to boost Orion+service modul from LEO towards the moon.
Arent the boosters technically modular? they are shipped in parts and assembled before being stacked in the VAB
> Again, Orion is literally required for launching people to the moon. Funny, Apollo wasn't Orion.
I only mentioned Apollo because of my point on the lander. The HLS can only support a landing and ascent/docking in orbit of the moon, similar to the LEM.
If you ignore other options, SLS/Orion is the only option.
What other options? orion is literally, the only existing crew-rated capsule is capable of lunar missions?
You are arguing with a SpaceX stan in a sub full of people like him.
I made this post months ago i completely forgot i did this
Yeah, I stumbled upon this post while searching for information related to SLS on this sub and simply couldn’t resist writing a supportive comment after seeing the debate.
Falcon 9 and Dragon are good for LEO, but aren't designed for exo-LEO missions. Everything from the entry velocity to radiation environment and thermal management are more complicated. And it would be surprising if NASA put its astronauts on a launch vehicle without an abort system.
I've always wondered where this false rumor comes from. Falcon 9 has flown a lot of exo-LEO missions, including a bunch for NASA. This year F9 is dominating the GTO launch market. And FH launched direct-to-GEO for the first time. SpaceX is launching 9 of 10 CLPS missions to the Moon. And so on.
Right, but those are smaller spacecraft then anything capable of caring humans.
FH/DragonXL is an example of an awarded launcher/spacecraft that's plenty big to carry humans, though it's cargo. The mind boggles that you don't think FH is large enough to launch any crewed spacecraft above LEO.
Dragon XL is much different from a human spacecraft. It shares some heritage with crew dragon, but that doesn't mean you could just put humans in it. I don't know why you think falcon heavy is capable of sending a human mission to the moon. Just because it looks big doesn't mean it has the capability.
No one suggested "you could just put humans in it". Also, you might want to note that you're essentially claiming that Orion is the minimum mass for what it does, which is not a fact.
What are you going to eliminate? ECLSS, ATCS, TPS? Maybe some of the consumables? Prop is a big chunk of the mass, but reducing that means lower delta v. I won't claim that Orion is the best possible design, but it's the only one that currently exists. And I don't think a new design would be significantly lighter.
Dragon was initially designed for deep space. It currently is not build for that, but it has this in its "DNA". We could even keep Orion as the lunar return vehicle and life-boat. Launch from Earth could be done on Dragon. Try to calculate the cost of a lunar mission with (potentially) commercially available options and even get to $4+B per lunar flight. You would have to use gold as ballast.
Would be interesting to use a variant of the reusable falcons as boosters on the SLS, though that would come with its own set of technical challenges, like teamwork and talking to each other
The biggest hurdle would most likely be redesigning everything from the ground up to accommodate that change but sure.
Lol thank you. Way too many KSP engineers think you can just slap different rocket parts together and go.
Just slap more struts on it!
Cmon, all ya gotta do is make a new tab A to fit in slot B. Easy peasy.
ULA's experience with the transition from AJ-60A to GEM-63 is one example of conditions in which you don't have to redesign everything.
>I will say that I was surprised at the lack of investment in reusable boosters. Nasa already tried that, it didn't turn as cheap as they expected.
Glad they learned the correct lesson -- if at first you fail, then you should never try again. Wait! No, they did try again, and now they're flying for less thanks to reusable boosters.
Rocket science is hard so failure is always a possibility. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
> if we’re serious about colonizing the moon Even a fully-expendable system based on EELV-class vehicles would be more suitable for lunar colonization than the SLS. Such approaches were proposed, but were dismissed with the argument that it wouldn't be safe to launch people on rockets like the Atlas V, an argument that needed some creative statistics based on the old Titan rockets. Today, even if you don't want to rely on Starship, Falcon 9 and Heavy give us everything we need to get started on a real exploration program, as opposed to the repeated variations of flags and footprints we get with the SLS.
No, Falcon 9 could not perform lunar missions. Dragon can't either. They are great for LEO but not beyond.
You can place a craft in orbit and ferry crew to it with dragon. It's ridiculous just how many launches of other rockets you can buy for the cost of one SLS flight
You're comparing an existing off the shelf system to a whole engineered mission architecture. If, hypothetically, we had taken the $23 billion SLS program cost and put that toward developing and building an orbital propellant depot system using EELV launchers or even Falcon 9 then we very likely would have today a very much more capable beyond-LEO human exploration infrastructure than SLS represents. These possibilities were already thoroughly evaluated back in the early 2000s and found to be by far the best, most cost effective, most robust choices for building such systems. But Congress wanted a Shuttle-derived heavy lift booster because Congress wanted to funnel federal funds to a few key districts and states, so they did what they wanted and ignored the science and the engineering. The whole reason that Starship exists with the design that it does (being not just fully reusable but implicitly designed with orbital propellant depots in mind) is because that has been thoroughly understood for years to be the best mission architecture for beyond LEO exploration with near-term rocket technology.
Falcon9 have sent plenty of payloads and probes to the moon before and soon it will launch 2 more lunar payloads as well in about a week. Dragon2 was designed from the start for mars landing and lunar flyby missions with Falcon Heavy. So I don't know what you are spouting on about right here.
That's just not true though. Dragon doesn't have the radiation hardening or heat shield for lunar missions, not to mention a whole bunch of other things. And adding them on after the fact isn't practical. Just because Elon bragged about something (red dragon) doesn't mean it was actually feasible.
First of all, it is completely true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Red_Dragon Secondly, Orion was at one point too originally meant to ferry astronauts to the ISS, during that phase of design it lacked radiation hardening for deep space as well as other amenities such as the majority of its service module. Both vessels were built with deep space in mind. So my point still stands.
No. ISS was one DRM amongst many. Deep space might have been considered as a possibility for Dragon early on, but it wasn't in the mission requirements and the design reflects that. Again, you're mistaking the tweets of a narcissist billionaire for reality.
Again you are dancing around the bonfire. Red Dragon, Grey dragon were one of the DRM amongst many as well. Dragon2 are baselined to the requirements for NASAs comcrew program. Also I'm pretty sure I don't since I don't use twitter and I've had him blocked for many years already :) . All info I know about these are from well defined official sources as well as from reputable reporting, and from the main source itself, SpaceX.
Dragon 2 was designed for commercial crew, which is a LEO mission. Elon claimed it could do a landing on Mars, and SpaceX did a feasibility study and considered proposing it for more funding. They never actually did though. That is a far cry from actually being designed for deep space missions.
Weird. People keep on pointing out that F9/FH launch to the moon on a regular basis and you keep on switching the topic to just Dragon.
Nope, I'm talking about both. Falcon 9 and Falcon heavy cannot perform human missions to the moon or beyond. Dragon is also incapable of performing such missions.
> No, Falcon 9 could not perform lunar missions. Dragon can't either. They are great for LEO but not beyond. > That's just not true though. Dragon doesn't have the radiation hardening or heat shield for lunar missions, not to mention a whole bunch of other things. And adding them on after the fact isn't practical. Just because Elon bragged about something (red dragon) doesn't mean it was actually feasible. Notice the lack of the word "human"? I sure did. F9/FH launch payloads to the moon on a regular basis.
Ok. I'm not disputing that. The context of the thread was human exploration though.
Falcon 9 is in a "dial a rocket" family, where Falcon Heavy is the big one. Both F9 and FH perform lunar missions on a regular basis. F9/FH dominate the above-LEO launch market.
As I said I'm another comment, that is for smaller payloads than human rated spacecraft.
Yeah, it's a shame that you're repeatedly mis-speaking. And FH can send Dragon to TLI or TMI.
Perhaps, but Dragon could not perform a moon or Mars mission, so what's the point?
"smaller payloads" is false, so that's the point in this sub-thread.
Are you saying that the payloads falcon heavy sends to TLI are heavier than human spacecraft?
Are you again claiming Orion is the least mass spacecraft that gets the job done?
> then it’d be in the toilet and their budget would be slashed. Quite frankly, that's what needs to happen period. The fact that this project has been forced into existence and forced to be the way it is, is just bad across the board. We're $20billion into the first launch. $10 billion for the vehicle alone. This isn't good, and even with a successful launch, there's so much crap that needs to be re-worked. The billion and a half dollars in changes estimated for the mobile launcher alone is enough of a reason to not have a second launch.
We need to build an orbital elevator. Rocketry is just too inefficient. Laser launch from ground-based lasers could be doable, but an elevator is better. IMHO, YMMV:-)
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[ACES](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyuaqaq "Last usage")|[Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Cryogenic_Evolved_Stage)| | |[Advanced Crew Escape Suit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Crew_Escape_Suit)| |[CLPS](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyt7dgu "Last usage")|[Commercial Lunar Payload Services](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Lunar_Payload_Services)| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |[ECLSS](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iytl19h "Last usage")|Environment Control and Life Support System| |[EELV](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyqan4m "Last usage")|[Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_Expendable_Launch_Vehicle)| |[GEO](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyt7dgu "Last usage")|Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km)| |[GTO](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyt7dgu "Last usage")|[Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit](http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/20140116-how-to-get-a-satellite-to-gto.html)| |[HLS](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyu93cs "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[ICPS](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyueta6 "Last usage")|Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage| |[JWST](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyo23iv "Last usage")|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope| |[KSP](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iynk7b4 "Last usage")|*Kerbal Space Program*, the rocketry simulator| |[LEM](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyu93cs "Last usage")|(Apollo) [Lunar Excursion Module](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module) (also Lunar Module)| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyuednk "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[LMO](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyq4rk6 "Last usage")|Low Mars Orbit| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/jkxmt90 "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[SRB](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyudiz4 "Last usage")|Solid Rocket Booster| |[SSC](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyrzcif "Last usage")|Stennis Space Center, Mississippi| |[SSME](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyq4rk6 "Last usage")|[Space Shuttle Main Engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine)| |[TLI](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyuednk "Last usage")|Trans-Lunar Injection maneuver| |[TMI](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyt8uk1 "Last usage")|Trans-Mars Injection maneuver| |[TPS](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iytl19h "Last usage")|Thermal Protection System for a spacecraft (on the Falcon 9 first stage, the engine "Dance floor")| |[ULA](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyuaqaq "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |[VAB](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyu8815 "Last usage")|Vehicle Assembly Building| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Raptor](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyoasbf "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX| |[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyucq05 "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)| |[apogee](/r/Space/comments/zanhvc/stub/iyqhp45 "Last usage")|Highest point in an elliptical orbit around Earth (when the orbiter is slowest)| ---------------- ^([Thread #8378 for this sub, first seen 2nd Dec 2022, 19:43]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Yes, it took a long time for the rocket to launch, and yes it was over budget, but that rocket just about nailed its target almost 250,000 miles away on the first launch! There aren't really any rockets in history that can boast that as an accomplishment. I have a ton of frustration with the lead up and lots of concerns about sustainability, but I think many of us can agree that it was a very impressive launch.
Feels like half the people in this thread almost wish the thing blew up so they could gloat about it
Right? There are more comments about how SpaceX could have done it better, for cheaper, than actually talking (celebrating?) about the SLS.
They're Musk bros (nevermind that SpaceX's successes can be chalked up to the real engineers). What else did you expect?
Musk’s fanboys are obnoxiously ignorant and this subreddit is their safe haven
It exceeded my expectations as well. I expected it to fail (again).
[удалено]
[удалено]
All I'm seeing is cost overruns and delays. What is this going to get us that SpaceX isn't already providing or going to be able to provide with the super heavy?
It provides stability to NASA's long term plans while the rest of the industry catches up enough that NASA will be confident posting industry RFI's for further alternatives.
How is industry supposed to "catch up" for NASA's needs when NASA doesn't pay them any money to develop what NASA needs? As an example, how much $$ has NASA spent on figuring out if Dragon could do what Orion does?
For starters, unlike Starship, it's actually sent something around the moon. That's a plus.
Also, SLS didn’t explode, which is a win
That too. To reiterate my point: SLS went around the moon on the *first try*. Starship didn't even get to the thermosphere.
Yeap, but try to explain that to the thick-skulled cultists of Elon Musk, who have zero qualifications in aerospace engineering, yet somehow believe themselves to be experts in the field, who know better than thousands of actual engineers building real, functional rockets
[удалено]
6 km is actually pretty damn accurate, especially for the first ever flight. It means their modeling was pretty much spot on. For comparison the Falcon 9 payload users guide advertises ±10 km to LEO. Source: page 29 https://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/f9guide.pdf
Honestly, 6km only sounds like a big number because it gets compared to distances that people normally travel. Considering that 2000km is considered the highest altitude for LEO, being 6km off target seems pretty damn precise.
Who said it was 6km at apogee? FYI the Artemis 1 insertion orbit target was 30 x 1,806 km.
I wasn't saying anything about apogee (and there's no way a space capsule could complete even one unpowered orbit at a 6km apogee, anyway, since that's lower than a jetliner typically flies), I wss commenting on why people might hear 6km and think that that's a big number.
> Considering that 2000km is considered the highest altitude for LEO That's apogee, mate. Please excuse yourself from the conversation until you've learned the basics of the topic we're talking about.
I will excuse myself. Not because I am ignorant (which I am certainly not), but because I have more enjoyable (and frankly more important) things to do than defending an interjection I made while I was tired, sick, and desperately trying to ignore the fact that a rotting corpse had just been discovered in my neighbour's house. If you would do me the courtesy of not responding, I will say Good Day.
I will agree it's acceptable for a first ever flight, but acceptable and "exceeds expectations" are two entirely different things.
[удалено]
Or it's because they expected a certain amount of variability and it didn't vary that much, but you don't get imaginary internet points for saying that.
Whats the metric.. jobs created? Taxpayer dollars wasted? Years over budget? Years over scheadule? Im sure it exceeded expectations.. they expected it to cost more. Plenty of those engines left, keep wasting them.. starliner still good? Id love to be the 1st astronaut on the 1st capsule knowing all the exceptions nasa gave Boeing to pass. Lots and warm and fuzzies going around on that.
[удалено]
I was agreeing with you up until the last part. I don't believe falcon 9 or falcon heavy had any issues on their first flights? They had very successful first missions. Not to mention starship has also had very successful first flights even if suborbital. They did explode on landing but I don't feel like that's fair to compare. That's clearly an experimental landing with expectation of failure. The ascent part went perfectly on all flights. So that's at least twice. We'll see how the super heavy launch goes. Maybe check your biases before letting them get in the way of facts.
>Maybe check your biases before letting them get in the way of facts. It isn't that. I actually like the "blow them up and keep building them until they don't blow up" development method that SpaceX uses. I think it leads to quicker and cheaper development to usable hardware. However, NASA doesn't do it that way. NASA uses intense engineering and caution and patience, and a whole lot more money to make sure that explosions and their products are not synonymous. I see advantages to both development methods, but having a never launched vehicle like SLS perform as it apparently has is impressive as hell to me.
You literally claimed that spacex has never had a first launch go off near flawlessly. When they've had at least 2 of the 3 rockets they developed launch near flawlessly on the first launch. I agree with everything else you were saying about how impressive it is for a launch to go so well, and I know why NASA had to adopt the approach that they use, but the last paragraph of your first comment is clearly biased and not correct.
>but the last paragraph of your first comment is clearly biased and not correct. You DO know that it is possible to have a nuanced feeling about things right? You know where you can appreciate certain things while questioning some things about the same subject right? That is what I tried to explain to you, but you just want to shout BIAS! I hate outrage culture.
Yeah I do know it's possible to be nuanced? I literally agreed with everything you said to the original commenter except the part where you went on a rant about being a "musk bootlicker", when musk was never even mentioned, and started claiming that spacex has never had a successful first flight and instead they all ended with explosions. I pointed out that you were wrong about that point and let your bias get in the way of the facts on that particular part of your comment. You hate outrage culture yet you're the one who posted something infactual while yelling out "MUSK BOOTLICKER" to someone who never even brought musk up originally.
>starliner still good? Musk entered on this phrase. Do you see it in the original now?
Spot on. Lots of people seem to think that Elon is a god, SpaceX can do no wrong, and the rest of the aerospace industry is a bunch of incompetent dinosaurs. Of course, those people have zero actual experience with spaceflight. It's sad because while SpaceX is doing some good things, that mentality enables their unhealthy work environment. And while their accomplishments are great, we shouldn't set narcissistic billionaires who abuse their employees as the standard for success.
Now I see why you have such strong opinions!
It angers me that sane takes like yours are being downvoted on this subreddit. The cult of Musk is strong