Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Space exploration: Where do we go from here?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Originally posted by MichVandal View Post

    So we are over paying for the service? If they have so much to waste like that. It was more waste than benefit.
    Overpaying relative to what? Like, there are three or four acts in town. ESA, SpaceX, NASA (really just an agglomeration of contractors), and does blue horizons do contract work? So basically overpaying is relative to what you can get these three or four down to in costs.

    It's a good question though.

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Originally posted by LynahFan View Post

    Right, but their Falcon/Dragon based launch service (which apparently derives 85% of its revenue from government contracts) has nothing to do with their bumbling Starship project. The implication of that quote you responded to was “how can taxpayers be wasting money on Starship???” Which we aren’t.

    The starship dollars are Musk’s dollars which he could be spending on real estate in Tahiti, but he’s choosing to repeatedly give himself public black eyes instead. Now, if he’s using that money to get the government to look the other way on safety or environmental impacts, there’s a major problem with that, of course.
    So we are over paying for the service? If they have so much to waste like that. It was more waste than benefit.

    Leave a comment:


  • LynahFan
    replied
    Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post

    My quote was a response to this:


    Right, but their Falcon/Dragon based launch service (which apparently derives 85% of its revenue from government contracts) has nothing to do with their bumbling Starship project. The implication of that quote you responded to was “how can taxpayers be wasting money on Starship???” Which we aren’t.

    The starship dollars are Musk’s dollars which he could be spending on real estate in Tahiti, but he’s choosing to repeatedly give himself public black eyes instead. Now, if he’s using that money to get the government to look the other way on safety or environmental impacts, there’s a major problem with that, of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slap Shot
    replied
    Originally posted by LynahFan View Post

    I really don’t understand what you’re getting at. Their “government funding” is in the form of payment for launch services, not R&D grants. When SpaceX launches from Cape Canaveral, they follow all the rules (including environmental) that any user of that government facility would have to. Much as I hate Elmo and SpaceX, there’s nothing to quibble with there - they built a better mousetrap that meets a government mission need, and they are justly reaping the rewards (ie profits).

    It’s what Musk chooses to do with those profits where it all goes wrong. Rather than something Iuseful or responsible, he’s choosing to plow them into his corner-cutting environment-ruining ego-ballooning disaster of a garage band. So far as I can tell, the US taxpayers have not invested a single penny into the Starship enterprise (if you’ll forgive the pun).
    My quote was a response to this:

    Either they are overpaid and can do this debacle, or they are underpaid for this failure. But they get paid for putting stuff in orbit, and 85% of that payment is our tax dollars.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Originally posted by aparch View Post
    I still can't believe the destruction of the pad and surrounding area all because Musk "doesn't like the look of flame diverters or water suppression."

    It's these little corners that they cut that just does not leave me with warm fuzzy feelings about NASA using SpaceX so heavily.

    It's like Musk's ego couldn't handle 80 years of rocketry history and experience and threw it all out the window to "reinvent the wheel."

    Tens of tiny rocket engines versus fewer and larger? The Soviets proved this was a problem, and scrapped it in favor of the tried and true bigger but fewer engines.

    Flame diverter / water sound suppression? NASA, the Soviets, hell China figured that out long ago.

    Launch pad design that doesn't resemble a roasted chicken stand? Again, Every space agency figured that sh*t out.

    Rocket stage separation? SpaceX went pneumatic, instead of explosive bolts like every other rocket company.


    It honestly wouldn't surprise me if you told me Musk doesn't like the ink in space pens AND hates that pencil lead can break in the capsule, so he's even having SpaceX engineer a new space pen.
    I didn't know super heavy had 33 until this week. I immediately messaged my coworkers before the explosion and said "Lmao, sure let's take the most complicated and important part of the rocket and slap three dozen of them on there"

    just insane.

    lol. I called it a turkey fryer stand.

    Leave a comment:


  • LynahFan
    replied
    Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post

    That doesn't answer the question. They are now 85% government funded - are they not incentivized to not f**l things up, or will the feds continue to fund them no matter what? Look beyond one single occurrence.
    I really don’t understand what you’re getting at. Their “government funding” is in the form of payment for launch services, not R&D grants. When SpaceX launches from Cape Canaveral, they follow all the rules (including environmental) that any user of that government facility would have to. Much as I hate Elmo and SpaceX, there’s nothing to quibble with there - they built a better mousetrap that meets a government mission need, and they are justly reaping the rewards (ie profits).

    It’s what Musk chooses to do with those profits where it all goes wrong. Rather than something useful or responsible, he’s choosing to plow them into his corner-cutting environment-ruining ego-ballooning disaster of a garage band. So far as I can tell, the US taxpayers have not invested a single penny into the Starship enterprise (if you’ll forgive the pun).

    Leave a comment:


  • aparch
    replied
    I still can't believe the destruction of the pad and surrounding area all because Musk "doesn't like the look of flame diverters or water suppression."

    It's these little corners that they cut that just does not leave me with warm fuzzy feelings about NASA using SpaceX so heavily.

    It's like Musk's ego couldn't handle 80 years of rocketry history and experience and threw it all out the window to "reinvent the wheel."

    Tens of tiny rocket engines versus fewer and larger? The Soviets proved this was a problem, and scrapped it in favor of the tried and true bigger but fewer engines.

    Flame diverter / water sound suppression? NASA, the Soviets, hell China figured that out long ago.

    Launch pad design that doesn't resemble a roasted chicken stand? Again, Every space agency figured that sh*t out.

    Rocket stage separation? SpaceX went pneumatic, instead of explosive bolts like every other rocket company.


    It honestly wouldn't surprise me if you told me Musk doesn't like the ink in space pens AND hates that pencil lead can break in the capsule, so he's even having SpaceX engineer a new space pen.
    Last edited by aparch; 04-22-2023, 09:00 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post

    If that's true I put that as much on the ones that agreed to give them carte blanche as SpaceX themselves.
    It’s not so much that the launch failed- that happens. It’s more all of the stuff that lead and followed it.

    I do wonder about how much the whole thing will affect flight approval over the long run.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slap Shot
    replied
    Originally posted by MichVandal View Post

    As far as I know, as long as they don’t start blowing stuff up they get paid to launch, they will get funding.
    If that's true I put that as much on the ones that agreed to give them carte blanche as SpaceX themselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post

    That doesn't answer the question. They are now 85% government funded - are they not incentivized to not f**l things up, or will the feds continue to fund them no matter what? Look beyond one single occurrence.
    As far as I know, as long as they don’t start blowing stuff up they get paid to launch, they will get funding.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slap Shot
    replied
    Originally posted by MichVandal View Post

    Either they are overpaid and can do this debacle, or they are underpaid for this failure. But they get paid for putting stuff in orbit, and 85% of that payment is our tax dollars.
    That doesn't answer the question. They are now 85% government funded - are they not incentivized to not f**l things up, or will the feds continue to fund them no matter what? Look beyond one single occurrence.

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post

    Yes they do or don't have an incentive? Because i would hope the government would cease continuing that 85% if they're truly grossly incompetent.
    Either they are overpaid and can do this debacle, or they are underpaid for this failure. But they get paid for putting stuff in orbit, and 85% of that payment is our tax dollars.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    I was thinking that's severe exposure to politics, for example, to Elmo's Bond Villain act.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slap Shot
    replied
    Originally posted by MichVandal View Post

    85% of their income comes from the US government. So yes.
    Yes they do or don't have an incentive? Because i would hope the government would cease continuing that 85% if they're truly grossly incompetent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by MichVandal View Post

    Seems to me that it should be compared to a full Saturn moon launch, which to me made it look reasonable. Although one of the high points of this system was the most power ever, so it could be a problem. Dx made a good suggestion that the pad damage may have had an impact on the rockets, so…
    The rocketry Youtube I watched (Alpha Science, or something like that) noted that chunks of concrete pitted the tank farm that was a fair distance from the pad, and they made the point that several of the "rockets" were probably knocked out before it even cleared the tower, but I read that as the Starship rockets that failed on separation, not the Heavy rockets used for lift off.


    Last edited by Kepler; 04-21-2023, 04:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X