- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NASA admits it’s Space Launch System rocket is unaffordable.
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:08 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:08 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
It has zero reusability.
The spacecraft and srbs are both reusable.
2
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:11 pm to elprez00
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:14 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Assume the downvotes are coming from Boeing/Lockheed employees.
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:15 pm to Free888
quote:
Assume the downvotes are coming from Boeing/Lockheed employees.
Nah just people who irrationally hate Elon because he bought Twitter
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:19 pm to Basura Blanco
quote:
Seems like a deal when you consider military spending on the F-35 program, which is admittingly not apples to apples.
I’m really not white knighting for the government, but honestly people should read a book or listen to a podcast and learn something. If you read up, honestly the development of the F35 wasn’t really any worse than any new weapons system over the last 40 years. Those just weren’t done on twitter. Look up the XB-70, F-16 and others.
What I really don’t think people have an appreciation for is just how advanced the airplane is. A lot is classified, but just the helmet is a technological marvel. They call it “sensor fusion”. The airplane can take in data from its own radar, electromagnetic, infrared, radio, etc plus other planes data and integrate it into one usable system. There’s been a ton of research into how to make this work. I listened to a podcast where a test pilot talked about vertigo issues during testing because apparently you can take the inputs from the cameras on the exterior of the airplane and project it onto the helmet display. Think an Oculus on steroids. The issues were the plane “disappears” and when the pilot looks down he sees the ground like he’s Superman.
When it comes to rockets, again read The Right Stuff or something about Project Mercury and the development of the Redstone and Atlas rockets.
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:21 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Nah just people who irrationally hate Elon because he bought Twitter
You're the only irrational one. The whole space program is contracted out by NASA and you're singling out one contractor and pitting it against the project manager. It doesn't even make sense.
This post was edited on 9/12/23 at 7:23 pm
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:24 pm to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
You're the only irrational one. The whole space program is contracted out by NASA and you're singling out one contractor and pitted it against the project manager. It doesn't even make sense.
Well that’s not true. SpaceX and other contractors like ULA launch most of their rockets for other private companies like telecommunications. Also Space Force and of course a bunch of SpaceX launches have been solely for Starlink internet satellites. Even several private manned space flights so far.
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:25 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
In addition to the nearly $12 billion already spent developing the SLS rocket, NASA asked for more than $11 billion
$23b is unaffordable to push the known limits of human ingenuity but a drop in the bucket (and sometimes simply misplaced) to wage proxy wars. But, we all know the real reason. It’s unaffordable because they’ll actually have to spend most of that money on the stated purpose rather than lining Raytheon and politician pockets.
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:27 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Thought it was obvious when I said "space program," I wasn't talking about anything commercial.
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:29 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
The Apollo program alone cost us around $260 billion in today's dollars.
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:31 pm to elprez00
quote:
If you read up, honestly the development of the F35 wasn’t really any worse than any new weapons system over the last 40 years. Those just weren’t done on twitter. Look up the XB-70, F-16 and others.
Totally agree, which is why I said its not apples/apples. I have no issue with the F-35, but as a budgetary line item, what NASA is asking for is chicken feed in comparison to defense spending. And for the record, I am not opposed to either.
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:33 pm to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
You're the only irrational one. The whole space program is contracted out by NASA and you're singling out one contractor and pitting it against the project manager. It doesn't even make sense.
Because NASA contracted out the entire SLS system to other contractors who are over budget and were 7 years overdue before the first test launch. And now that Starship is almost ready the SLS is obsolete before it even goes to the moon. SpaceX is simply light years ahead of every other contractor that has been in bed with politicians for generations.
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:36 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
the space agency “does not plan to measure production costs to monitor the affordability of its most powerful rocket.”
Has anyone commented on this? I've always been a supporter of NASA, but this just about ends that.
No plan to measure costs.
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:36 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
And now that Starship is almost ready the SLS is obsolete before it even goes to the moon.
Just so we're still clear, trips to the moon... sls 1 spacex 0
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:40 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
. And now that Starship is almost ready the SLS is obsolete before it even goes to the moon.
How is it almost ready when it just blew up?
SpaceX has to make multiple successful trips before NASA will trust it to land astronauts.
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:41 pm to MoarKilometers
quote:
Just so we're still clear, trips to the moon... sls 1 spacex 0
Yeah I get what you’re saying but let’s also be clear, the Starship is going to be bigger, faster and have a higher payload that SLS and is reusable. I suspect that Starship will orbit late this year or early next and go to the moon shortly after that. And Starship is the one that will actually be landing on the moon.
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:42 pm to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
How is it almost ready when it just blew up?
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:46 pm to Dixie Normus
quote:
It’s unaffordable because they’ll actually have to spend most of that money on the stated purpose rather than lining Raytheon and politician pockets.
If you think Boeing and Lockheed contracts for NASA are any more efficient than MIC contracts, you're naive.
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:47 pm to MoarKilometers
Well it is different because of the R&D philosophies of SpaceX and NASA. SpaceX knows their shite is gonna fail and blow up the first few times and launches anyway to learn what the problems are. Everyone else tests and engineers and tests and re-engineers for years so that they have a high confidence that it will work the first try. If SLS had failed they would be set back years, not a couple months as is the case with SpaceX. In fact, if SLS had blown up the program would’ve probably been scrapped altogether.
Posted on 9/12/23 at 7:53 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Nobody ever said putting the first woman (with preferred pronouns) and a person of color on the moon would be cheap.
Big decision will be will they do it during black history month, women's appreciation month, or LGBTQ++ and beyond pride month?
And don't make Nelson open up a can of DEI on Elon.
Big decision will be will they do it during black history month, women's appreciation month, or LGBTQ++ and beyond pride month?
And don't make Nelson open up a can of DEI on Elon.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News