NASA – Artemis I Liftoff(blogs.nasa.gov)
blogs.nasa.gov
NASA – Artemis I Liftoff
https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/artemis-i-liftoff/
203 comments
Further Artemis / Orion Milestones;
Orion Solar Array Deploy Complete : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/orion-solar-array-...
Perigee Raise Maneuver Complete : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/perigee-raise-mane...
Orion on Its Way to the Moon : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/orion-on-its-way-t...
Orion Solar Array Deploy Complete : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/orion-solar-array-...
Perigee Raise Maneuver Complete : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/perigee-raise-mane...
Orion on Its Way to the Moon : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/orion-on-its-way-t...
Further Artemis / Orion Milestones;
Orion Begins Checkouts, Completes First Service Module Course Correction Burn : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/orion-begins-check...
---
Orion Spacecraft - @NASA_Orion - 2h
Mission Time: 1 days, 2 hrs, 5 min
Orion is 121,949 miles from Earth, 173,277 miles from the Moon, cruising at 3,076 miles per hour.
P: (-121391, -32858, -6119) V: (-2675, -1419, -540) O: 355º, 331.4º, 316.1º
Track NASA's Artemis I Mission in-real-time : http://www.nasa.gov/feature/track-nasa-s-artemis-i-mission-i...
#TrackArtemis
Orion Begins Checkouts, Completes First Service Module Course Correction Burn : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/orion-begins-check...
---
Orion Spacecraft - @NASA_Orion - 2h
Mission Time: 1 days, 2 hrs, 5 min
Orion is 121,949 miles from Earth, 173,277 miles from the Moon, cruising at 3,076 miles per hour.
P: (-121391, -32858, -6119) V: (-2675, -1419, -540) O: 355º, 331.4º, 316.1º
Track NASA's Artemis I Mission in-real-time : http://www.nasa.gov/feature/track-nasa-s-artemis-i-mission-i...
#TrackArtemis
So strange seeing modern HD video of a rocket that size lifting off. Can’t wait to see HD footage from the surface of the moon.
Honestly I had the opposite reaction about the video. Compared to the polished on-rocket camera angles and real-time telemetry we get from a SpaceX launch, tonight's grainy footage of a white spot speeding away into the distance overlaid with a monochrome low-res technical readout felt like a step backward.
Tim Dodd's 4k 120fps tracking shots are amazing.
Can't do a timestamp yet as it's still live but it's obviously towards the end. Look for the Replay overlay on lower left.
https://youtu.be/FbX2VuOwJGk
edit with timestamps:
Tracking wide slow motion: https://youtu.be/FbX2VuOwJGk?t=29944
Tracking zoom: https://youtu.be/FbX2VuOwJGk?t=30547
These zoom shots are really freakin cool.
Can't do a timestamp yet as it's still live but it's obviously towards the end. Look for the Replay overlay on lower left.
https://youtu.be/FbX2VuOwJGk
edit with timestamps:
Tracking wide slow motion: https://youtu.be/FbX2VuOwJGk?t=29944
Tracking zoom: https://youtu.be/FbX2VuOwJGk?t=30547
These zoom shots are really freakin cool.
8k 120fps. And agree, it's awesome.
Yeah, correct! Though my typo still stands I suppose as it's only streaming in 4k at the moment. Can't wait for them to punch in (zoom in) tomorrow! I am UTC+1 and I should probably take a nap after TLI. That was a good time!
I was surprised they didn't show any view from on-board cameras. Even on later Shuttle launches they had cameras on the solid rocket boosters and the external tank.
The stream did show a heavily corrupted video for a few moments that could have been from the rocket. So I guess they had cameras, but maybe had problems receiving the signal from them.
The stream did show a heavily corrupted video for a few moments that could have been from the rocket. So I guess they had cameras, but maybe had problems receiving the signal from them.
The "media" stream on YT showed the on-board cameras continuously until a few minutes ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA9UZF-SZoQ) Not sure why the main NASA stream only cut to them briefly
After launch, for a quick moment can be seen frozen images from inside the decoupling tube, so it is my guess that something did not worked as expected. The only detail I did not liked is someone decided to introduce some unforgivable images of the probe rendered with CGI, without warning to the viewers about the source (Perhaps telemetry data was expected to be overlayed on that image?)
The main NASA stream (which I watched the launch on) lacked a lot of things I'd prefer.
While they did have a time-graph line, it wasn't relatively spaced just integer ticks along the line.
No list of upcoming steps (1-3 next events) with associated -T+ timestamps they should happen at.
Most glaringly, while they did have a T clock up at some points, there was not a single, always in the same spot, T-clock, and they had a like 90 min hold at T-00:10:00 which is absolutely useless for viewers. It was tough peeking in every so often to tell what they were even waiting for with so many 'ad's / filler segments of videos that should be on the website / youtube in a press kit.
While they did have a time-graph line, it wasn't relatively spaced just integer ticks along the line.
No list of upcoming steps (1-3 next events) with associated -T+ timestamps they should happen at.
Most glaringly, while they did have a T clock up at some points, there was not a single, always in the same spot, T-clock, and they had a like 90 min hold at T-00:10:00 which is absolutely useless for viewers. It was tough peeking in every so often to tell what they were even waiting for with so many 'ad's / filler segments of videos that should be on the website / youtube in a press kit.
Seconded. I enjoyed the launch (which I watched on several streams carrying NASA coverage). Ultimately, NASA gets money to launch payloads not entertain people, but there is a great opportunity to increase public excitement and engagement. SpaceX's production formula (which built on NASA's) seems quite successful.
I agree I want to see a scaled timeline with upcoming milestones. I'd like to see basic telemetry (speed, alt, attitude) and a T count at all times, (with an estimated launch time (L-time) before launch). I actually like the way ISRO and ESA present time vs altitude and time vs velocity graphs with an expected line and an actual telemetry line. So I'd welcome something like that.
We got video from some engineering cameras later on in the launch, but the more the merrier; views of Earth from the rocket can be spectacular. Of course there's a practical matter of support for them and TDRS downlink bandwidth, but I think the outreach value of them should be a consideration for NASA.
I agree I want to see a scaled timeline with upcoming milestones. I'd like to see basic telemetry (speed, alt, attitude) and a T count at all times, (with an estimated launch time (L-time) before launch). I actually like the way ISRO and ESA present time vs altitude and time vs velocity graphs with an expected line and an actual telemetry line. So I'd welcome something like that.
We got video from some engineering cameras later on in the launch, but the more the merrier; views of Earth from the rocket can be spectacular. Of course there's a practical matter of support for them and TDRS downlink bandwidth, but I think the outreach value of them should be a consideration for NASA.
>Ultimately, NASA gets money to launch payloads not entertain people
The truth is, NASA’s strategic goals go beyond delivering payloads. E.g., they also have the explicit goal to
“Inspire and Engage the Public in Aeronautics, Space, and Science”
The truth is, NASA’s strategic goals go beyond delivering payloads. E.g., they also have the explicit goal to
“Inspire and Engage the Public in Aeronautics, Space, and Science”
Footage on Shuttle SRBs was recorded onboard and downloaded when recovered. SLS' SRBs are not recovered, so no footage.
SpaceX does this a lot, like we're getting in the launches per week range so they've worked all this out. The Artemis team, not so much I guess.
Did seem like there was a bit of fog at the very ground level, not enough to abort the launch, but enough for it to mess up the footage
Artemis all feels anachronistic for people keeping up with reusable rockets.
Yes this, and night launches are terrible anyways.
> rocket that size
I think the paint job (or lack of paint job) on Artemis makes it look smaller to me than the Saturn V rockets. When I saw a diagram showing the relative sizes of different rockets I was surprised that it was around the same size as the Saturn V.
Same goes for SpaceX’s super heavy. I don’t get much of a sense of the size from photos.
I think the paint job (or lack of paint job) on Artemis makes it look smaller to me than the Saturn V rockets. When I saw a diagram showing the relative sizes of different rockets I was surprised that it was around the same size as the Saturn V.
Same goes for SpaceX’s super heavy. I don’t get much of a sense of the size from photos.
I think you don't really appreciate how big the Saturn V (and similar) are unless you see the museum pieces in person. I grew up near a place that had one of the engines up on poles so you could walk under the bell and look up... kind of spooky to stand there and imagine the violence of the thing running.
Johnson Space Center near Houston has one and it truly is an awesome thing to see.
Same for the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama. The Saturn V is truly jaw-dropping to see in person, especially as you round the corner and see the gargantuan engines fill your view. The rocket is hung from the ceiling horizontally, allowing you to walk underneath its entire length. An unforgettable experience.
Yeah getting the sense of scale from SpaceX rockets is really hard. The various Starbase streams usually have a "woah" moment for me when you finally see people standing next to our working on some of the features of the various hulls as a point if comparison.
Starship has a decent built in scale with each of the welded ring sections being around human heigth... and then you see how many are stacked.
> modern HD video
I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't live stream actual 4K HDR content. Modern HD video was 10 years ago.
I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't live stream actual 4K HDR content. Modern HD video was 10 years ago.
The Apollo 11 documentary a few years ago had 4k-quality film footage. Worth checking out!
There's something special about moon missions to me. Maybe it's just because of my age or something but this just makes me hopeful for the future.
There's something special about NASA launches, I feel a palpable energy, it spikes my Adrenalin! - What a Buzz!
Good old days when SpaceX launches were exciting. Hah. We soon start over this with Starship hopefully.
There needs to be a Godwin's law for how long we can have a thread about space exploration without somebody mentioning SpaceX
Of course people are going to talk about SpaceX. They're the only ones who have rockets that land. It's because of this that SpaceX launches more mass to orbit than the rest of the world combined. Since last year, the majority of satellites ever launched have been put into orbit by SpaceX.
You might as well suggest a Godwin's law for phone discussion where someone mentions Apple.
You might as well suggest a Godwin's law for phone discussion where someone mentions Apple.
> They're the only ones who have rockets that land.
Blue origin also vertically land (and the Shuttle also landed)
Blue origin also vertically land (and the Shuttle also landed)
Not to take away from Blue origin, but orbital class rocket booster landing is different and much harder than going up, hovering and going down.
They had to move space down to meet Blue Origins rocket. At least SpaceX can get to orbit.
One of those is sub orbital still afaik, the other is a beautiful work of engineering but very much retired due to the complexities of the design and is more of a spaceplane than a rocket.
Regarding Blue Origin, if you can pad the margins of your vehicles heavily because you don't need to reach orbit, then it's a lot easier to make a vehicle reusable. This is why Scaled Composites could relatively easily throw together a vehicle that could perform this back in 2004.
I can fart very hard and land back on my chair and have achieved about as much as Blue Origin.
Not quite. SpaceX is willing to be push the limits of cash incineration where others are not, and that explains all of their progress. They boldly go where no-one has gone before, raising $10B so far and looking to raise more as we speak. This is standard operating procedure for Musk companies; burn cash to attempt to boil the ocean, then brag brag brag about how far ahead they are.
NASA and the DoD had orbital programs (Delta Clipper) vertically landing rockets back in the early 1990s.[1] Funding shortfalls eventually killed the program before it could reach its potential.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
I find it kind of refreshing (and rationally optimistic) that Falcon 9 launches are as uneventful as Airbus 320 flights. I sincerely hope one day space launches are considered a nuisance like airports are in cities that grew around them.
For me, personally, flying never gets old.
For me, personally, flying never gets old.
Live broadcast: https://youtu.be/CMLD0Lp0JBg
I had my 7 years daughter on my lap during the launch (minutes before school here), I dropped a tear when the engines went on. It had something magical to it. Hope for the future.
I know what you mean. I have a memory of watching a suborbital Mercury Redstone go up, on a B&W TV at age 4 and some months.
I still get a visceral thrill when one of those damn things reluctantly lifts itself up off the ground but then decides to let'er rip and pour on the speed and leap into the air like a frantic beast.
I still get a visceral thrill when one of those damn things reluctantly lifts itself up off the ground but then decides to let'er rip and pour on the speed and leap into the air like a frantic beast.
I understand the grievances about delays and overruns, but I am disappointed that the complainers can't for one moment be excited about the most powerful rocket in 50 years launching a crew-capable module further than ever before.
Let's just celebrate this moment, for a moment.
Let's just celebrate this moment, for a moment.
Replace rocket with 747.
It’s hard to be excited about a new 747 from Boeing that flies one way and then you throw it away.
Artemis is not changing the economics of space in any way. Just going back to the moon is not very interesting IMO.
It’s hard to be excited about a new 747 from Boeing that flies one way and then you throw it away.
Artemis is not changing the economics of space in any way. Just going back to the moon is not very interesting IMO.
It might not be very interesting, but it sure is exciting.
If the world didn't have a plane the size of a 747 for 50 years, and didn't have anything comparable planned when the rebuild was initiated 10 years ago, I'd be pretty psyched.
[deleted]
It’s incredible and the more organisations doing amazing things in space, the better! If SpaceX are focusing on unit economics and repeatable smaller launches, and NASA are still on the big ticket strategy - well, having both can only be a good thing!
I understand your feelings, but this rocket has way too many issues (and I'm not talking technical ones) with it for me to feel happy about it's launch. Also, at least to me, this continues to be a distraction for NASA preventing it from moving into the future. SLS is a roadblock to be overcome, not the future.
It's a re-living of the past rather than a look to the future.
It's a re-living of the past rather than a look to the future.
Just a little reminder:
Should have launched in 2015 for the cost of 12 billion. Launched in 2022 for the cost of 23 billion. It costs 3 billion per launch. (As per Wikipedia) And it is recycled Space Shuttle design and material.
Compare that with Space X Falcon Heavy launch costs of 100-150 million per launch.
Should have launched in 2015 for the cost of 12 billion. Launched in 2022 for the cost of 23 billion. It costs 3 billion per launch. (As per Wikipedia) And it is recycled Space Shuttle design and material.
Compare that with Space X Falcon Heavy launch costs of 100-150 million per launch.
Just a little reminder: Space X is leveraging decades of research and billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars put into this industry already. It didn’t start from scratch as some scrappy upstart that is now showing some sloppy, bloated government boondoggle up.
Not to mention you’re comparing apples to oranges. I suppose a decade from now after NASA has done all the work to lay the foundation when Musk comes in and brags about how much cheaper his version is we’ll see a similar narrative.
Not to mention you’re comparing apples to oranges. I suppose a decade from now after NASA has done all the work to lay the foundation when Musk comes in and brags about how much cheaper his version is we’ll see a similar narrative.
I think it’s fair to say that SpaceX has done innovative work here too. And if the SLS and Starship launches go as planned, SpaceX will have launched Starship many times before Artemis launches a second time. And Starship will be able to launch for 1/30th the cost, at a significantly higher launch cadence.
I will personally be surprised if SLS still exists in a decade.
Just remember I am saying “if Starship development goes according to plan” which I think is reasonably likely but of course not guaranteed.
I will personally be surprised if SLS still exists in a decade.
Just remember I am saying “if Starship development goes according to plan” which I think is reasonably likely but of course not guaranteed.
Yes, it's fair to say SpaceX has done innovative work. It's not fair to compare the cost of something that is an incremental improvement on a huge body of engineering knowledge to what NASA is doing, here.
And this comparison always comes up in the context of "evil inefficient gubmint stealing our tax dollars versus awesome private corporation showing how it should be done".
And this comparison always comes up in the context of "evil inefficient gubmint stealing our tax dollars versus awesome private corporation showing how it should be done".
From an engineering point of view, I don’t understand how you can imply that “what nasa is doing here” is more impressive than what SpaceX is doing. Perhaps I have misread your implication, but I believe the SpaceX rocket to be far more innovative than SLS.
As far as government spending, I’m far from a free market advocate. But I would rather see the government spend money effectively. If SLS will cost, say, ten billion dollars over the next decade to complete three more flights, I’d rather see the government buy $1B in services from SpaceX to ensure they finish development of Starship, securing rides on a rocket which is 1/30th the launch costs, and then spend the other $9 billion on social housing programs to alleviate homelessness in the country.
My point is not that I believe free markets will magically solve any problem we can imagine, but that a specific solution to the problem of heavy lift space vehicles that shows real promise is already nearly complete. I simply believe it would be a better use of funds to invest in that system than to continue to burn money on SLS. And the government understands this as it has awarded some money to SpaceX for moon missions with Starship. So they’re finding the much cheaper private option and the very expensive NASA option. And I just think that’s a poor use of funds given what each project promises.
As far as government spending, I’m far from a free market advocate. But I would rather see the government spend money effectively. If SLS will cost, say, ten billion dollars over the next decade to complete three more flights, I’d rather see the government buy $1B in services from SpaceX to ensure they finish development of Starship, securing rides on a rocket which is 1/30th the launch costs, and then spend the other $9 billion on social housing programs to alleviate homelessness in the country.
My point is not that I believe free markets will magically solve any problem we can imagine, but that a specific solution to the problem of heavy lift space vehicles that shows real promise is already nearly complete. I simply believe it would be a better use of funds to invest in that system than to continue to burn money on SLS. And the government understands this as it has awarded some money to SpaceX for moon missions with Starship. So they’re finding the much cheaper private option and the very expensive NASA option. And I just think that’s a poor use of funds given what each project promises.
What NASA is doing here is an incremental improvement on a huge body of engineering knowledge, at best. SLS is a bunch of Shuttle technology assembled into a multi-billion-dollar disposable rocket, not to serve the needs of NASA but as a Congressional jobs program for legacy contractors.
> It's not fair to compare the cost of something that is an incremental improvement on a huge body of engineering knowledge to what NASA is doing, here.
Just to be perfectly clear, are you saying SLS development also results in a lot of engineering knowledge? If so can you highlight what that knowledge would be -- propulsion, material, efficiency, avionics, manufacturing?
Just to be perfectly clear, are you saying SLS development also results in a lot of engineering knowledge? If so can you highlight what that knowledge would be -- propulsion, material, efficiency, avionics, manufacturing?
True, but SpaceX is at least advancing the "state of the art" with reusable rockets, whereas Artemis is just recreating a single-use moon rocket, which was already done with Saturn 5 more than 50 years ago.
The 'state of the art' that SpaceX is pushing is nearly entirely a software thing aided by Falcon's unique engine arrangement. Hardware-wise Falcons are no more advanced than an SLS core stage, and are likely even ore technically primitive than most LVs. If SLS' mission criteria included an emphasis on reusability, NASA would have a fully reusable booster + core stage by now.
This decision was entirely due to doctrine. STS was designed as a mostly reusable product and failed costs-wise, so the government basically forced NASA to go with something expendable instead. It is genuinely impressive that SpaceX proved that reusable launch vehicles can be made cost-effective, but it's nowhere near the kind of massive quantum leap that SpaceX's legion of hardcore followers seems to be convinced it is. Everything on a Falcon or a Dragon is public domain 60s technology besides the code and guidance hardware (based on COTS components). The same is likely be true of Starship, which explains a lot of the significant teething issues it has suffered over the past several flight tests.
This decision was entirely due to doctrine. STS was designed as a mostly reusable product and failed costs-wise, so the government basically forced NASA to go with something expendable instead. It is genuinely impressive that SpaceX proved that reusable launch vehicles can be made cost-effective, but it's nowhere near the kind of massive quantum leap that SpaceX's legion of hardcore followers seems to be convinced it is. Everything on a Falcon or a Dragon is public domain 60s technology besides the code and guidance hardware (based on COTS components). The same is likely be true of Starship, which explains a lot of the significant teething issues it has suffered over the past several flight tests.
> Everything on a Falcon or a Dragon is public domain 60s technology besides the code and guidance hardware
What a nice way to belittle the enormous significance of their achievements.
Reliability, total mass to LEO/GEO/TLI/Whatever, and $/kg in each of these cases, coupled with an amazing launch cadence, are where you can see the magnitude of the progress they've enabled. Whether you do it with expendable or reusable vehicles, burning RP-1, methane or a custom mixture of concentrated Jack Daniels and dog hair, doesn't really matter. They do it reliably, often and amazingly cheaply. SLS does none of that, and neither do any of the other launch systems.
Also if you value their improvements so little over "public domain 60s technology", how come nobody else did it in 50 years?
Come on, Elon is immensely questionable, but SpaceX is awesome (thanks in no small part to Gwynne Shotwell!) and SLS is... not, but at least it finally launched and didn't even blow up, so let's celebrate that instead of turning this into an opportunity to disparage them.
What a nice way to belittle the enormous significance of their achievements.
Reliability, total mass to LEO/GEO/TLI/Whatever, and $/kg in each of these cases, coupled with an amazing launch cadence, are where you can see the magnitude of the progress they've enabled. Whether you do it with expendable or reusable vehicles, burning RP-1, methane or a custom mixture of concentrated Jack Daniels and dog hair, doesn't really matter. They do it reliably, often and amazingly cheaply. SLS does none of that, and neither do any of the other launch systems.
Also if you value their improvements so little over "public domain 60s technology", how come nobody else did it in 50 years?
Come on, Elon is immensely questionable, but SpaceX is awesome (thanks in no small part to Gwynne Shotwell!) and SLS is... not, but at least it finally launched and didn't even blow up, so let's celebrate that instead of turning this into an opportunity to disparage them.
SpaceX is making significant breakthroughs that you can appreciate if you understand the tech.
> As of 2019, only three full-flow staged combustion rocket engines had ever progressed sufficiently to be tested on test stands; the Soviet Energomash RD-270 project in the 1960s, the US government-funded Aerojet Rocketdyne Integrated powerhead demonstration project in the mid-2000s,[6] and SpaceX's flight capable Raptor engine first test-fired in February 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staged_combustion_cycle
If you want to learn more
https://youtu.be/LbH1ZDImaI8
> As of 2019, only three full-flow staged combustion rocket engines had ever progressed sufficiently to be tested on test stands; the Soviet Energomash RD-270 project in the 1960s, the US government-funded Aerojet Rocketdyne Integrated powerhead demonstration project in the mid-2000s,[6] and SpaceX's flight capable Raptor engine first test-fired in February 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staged_combustion_cycle
If you want to learn more
https://youtu.be/LbH1ZDImaI8
We are always standing on the shoulders of giants. That is going to be the case always in the future.
However it is a question what SLS will do when they run out of these engines that's cost is in the same ballpark per piece as a full Falcon heavy. Or something like that. And those are just the engines. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-stag...
However it is a question what SLS will do when they run out of these engines that's cost is in the same ballpark per piece as a full Falcon heavy. Or something like that. And those are just the engines. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-stag...
They have a low cost replacement engine being completed and tested very soon.
Mhm, say, when in the 60s have they made a full-flow staged-combustion methalox engine?
Bare-skin stainless steel rockets?
Bare-skin stainless steel rockets?
The Falcon 9 booster landing also borrowed a lot from DC-X development.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
Shouldn't NASA launches be cheaper, or at least on budget, if they're leveraging all that as well?
Not necessarily... R&D is expensive regardless and SLS won't have as many launches to amortize across
You are going in circle here. SLS won't have many launches because it's too expensive, and they can't build more than one per year.
The cost and the tendency of its launch being scrubbed makes it a risk for any time sensitive mission, as shown by NASA decision to switch Europa Clipper to Falcon Heavy:
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/325106-europa-clipper-di...
The cost and the tendency of its launch being scrubbed makes it a risk for any time sensitive mission, as shown by NASA decision to switch Europa Clipper to Falcon Heavy:
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/325106-europa-clipper-di...
SpaceX seemed very scrappy to me, certainly an upstart, and their costs seem offer of magnitude lower. They also seem to have pushed the boundaries of technology, eg by landing boosters - not just on land but also at sea. I think the accusation that they just copied existing technology is untrue.
Everyone else can leverage it too. Why don't they?
NASA and contractors are also leveraging decades of research and billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars put into this industry already, or have the same opportunity for leverage and are failing to effectively leverage it.
$3 billion per launch! That seems a lot. Even if they throw away the entire rocket.
Falcon Heavy is not designed for crew. Starship is but is still under development. On the other hand, this launched today. We can afford the extra cost, I celebrate the success.
Some day Starship will have its moment as well.
Some day Starship will have its moment as well.
As far as I understand Starship can only reach LEO and requires refueling from several refueling missions while in orbit for longer missions. Great if spacex is able to pull it off, but it is years if not decades until they get there.
Starship didn't even exist other than in the form of some slides and early test articles as of 3 years ago. Now it's a fully built vehicle with one almost completed pad and one pad in early construction, getting very close to launch.
Predicting decades when it took them only 3 years to go from "nothing" to on the pad is a bit much.
Predicting decades when it took them only 3 years to go from "nothing" to on the pad is a bit much.
Describing anything SpaceX are already working on as “decades out” seems a bit risky given their rapid successes!
Several refueling is actually much cheaper than having it launched in a single piece because of the "rocket equation", google it. It is a good thing.
downplaying the difficulties of on orbit refuelling.
This isn't kerbal space program... Fluid's gonna fluid dynamics in a 0g environment...
This isn't kerbal space program... Fluid's gonna fluid dynamics in a 0g environment...
Differential pressure + milli-g induced gravity using thrusters should help a lot.
I bet it won't take more than 5 tries to do a full tank Starship transfer. And SpaceX iterates quickly
I bet it won't take more than 5 tries to do a full tank Starship transfer. And SpaceX iterates quickly
> downplaying the difficulties of on orbit refuelling.
Every single person I've heard say this hasn't given a reasonable reason why it's difficult other than "we've never done it before". Also on-orbit refueling has been done, just not with cryogenics. Additionally it's only been done in zero-G with bladders. A slight vehicle spin to settle tanks seems like it would be sufficient to feed some low speed pumps without bladders.
Every single person I've heard say this hasn't given a reasonable reason why it's difficult other than "we've never done it before". Also on-orbit refueling has been done, just not with cryogenics. Additionally it's only been done in zero-G with bladders. A slight vehicle spin to settle tanks seems like it would be sufficient to feed some low speed pumps without bladders.
“Let’s be very honest, We don’t have a commercially available heavy-lift vehicle. The Falcon 9 Heavy may some day come about. It’s on the drawing board right now. SLS is real.”
If in 2014, when this was said, NASA asked and funded SpaceX to human rate Heavy, they’d have launched already.
If in 2014, when this was said, NASA asked and funded SpaceX to human rate Heavy, they’d have launched already.
On the other hand, by the time SLS launches a second time, Starship will probably have launched ten times. The launch cadence for SLS is terrible.
Not designed for crew does not mean much, there is nothing inherent about that rocket that means you can't put a crew capsule on it. hell, project mercury slapped one on an atlas icbm. The aprophical story was that the astronauts could feel the rocket seeking to fulfill it's ballistic missile targeting duties when the signal from the ground stations cut out momentarily. which I don't believe for a minute, but it does make for a good story.
> there is nothing inherent about that rocket that means you can't put a crew capsule on it
But there is; gold standard for human rated missions is 98% reliability rate. This means testing every single component, and making sure that Product(Px) > 0.98 where Px is the probability failure of component x. This drives the cost up exponentially. E.g. if the rocket has Px = 0.99 and the crew capsule has Pcapsule = 0.99, then Psystem = 0.98, barely clearing the threshold.
Falcon 9 had 3.5 failures out of 185 launches, giving it a Pfalcon9 = 0.98; PfalconHeavy then is,at most, 0.98^3 = 0.84, way too low to make it human-rateabale.
The difference between Procket 0.84 and P0.99 is exponential cost.
But there is; gold standard for human rated missions is 98% reliability rate. This means testing every single component, and making sure that Product(Px) > 0.98 where Px is the probability failure of component x. This drives the cost up exponentially. E.g. if the rocket has Px = 0.99 and the crew capsule has Pcapsule = 0.99, then Psystem = 0.98, barely clearing the threshold.
Falcon 9 had 3.5 failures out of 185 launches, giving it a Pfalcon9 = 0.98; PfalconHeavy then is,at most, 0.98^3 = 0.84, way too low to make it human-rateabale.
The difference between Procket 0.84 and P0.99 is exponential cost.
Small nit: this assumes all components are series. You can also increase reliability through parallel (i.e., redundancy). Obviously, this may not work for all systems.
there are lots of ways to increase reliability - redundancy, graceful degradation (e.g. Abort to Orbit mode of STS) etc... but they cost, a lot :)
“Abort to Orbit” constitutes a mission failure and therefore doesn’t increase reliability. It decreases severity (and therefore lowers risk) by limiting loss of crew/spacecraft, but it’s not quite the same as increasing reliability
[deleted]
Prior to this launch SLS was 0/0. It's now 1/1.
Falcon Heavy has never had a launch failure. It's 4/4
If you're arguing it's had a failure because it shares heritage then SLS was 133/135 before the launch which is worse and so shouldn't fly crew until it does way more than just one flight.
Falcon Heavy has never had a launch failure. It's 4/4
If you're arguing it's had a failure because it shares heritage then SLS was 133/135 before the launch which is worse and so shouldn't fly crew until it does way more than just one flight.
First, one should not apply statistics retroactively until you hit large numbers.
Second, I am talking about design goals, not track records. You don't evaluate the safety of a large system by running it a lot of times and see what happens - you design the thing towards a goal of safety. So this involves designing each component to the specific failure rate, and testing individually, then then testing together, documenting every step, to provide traceability of every change on every component.
The comparison to historical data on Falcon is not entirely valid, because we don't know the design goals of Falcon, etc. Just because Falcon 9 is human rated, doesn't mean Falcon Heavy is human rated, etc.
Second, I am talking about design goals, not track records. You don't evaluate the safety of a large system by running it a lot of times and see what happens - you design the thing towards a goal of safety. So this involves designing each component to the specific failure rate, and testing individually, then then testing together, documenting every step, to provide traceability of every change on every component.
The comparison to historical data on Falcon is not entirely valid, because we don't know the design goals of Falcon, etc. Just because Falcon 9 is human rated, doesn't mean Falcon Heavy is human rated, etc.
0.98^3 is 0.94, not 0.84
Of course, you are right and I am wrong - fat fingered the calculation. The point however still stands - every extra point of reliability costs 10x.
Take a look at NASA STDs and you’ll understand there’s a world of difference between the requirements levied on human rated flights. Those extra requirements dramatically increase cost.
The quiet secret is that CCP can bypass a ton of requirements that NASA can’t. That is, until they do something like lose an astronaut and then I suspect they will get much more oversight.
The quiet secret is that CCP can bypass a ton of requirements that NASA can’t. That is, until they do something like lose an astronaut and then I suspect they will get much more oversight.
> Falcon Heavy is not designed for crew. [..] On the other hand, this launched today.
The Orion capsule launched today did not include the ECLSS system.
The Orion capsule launched today did not include the ECLSS system.
Falcon Heavy was not needed to be designed for crew, and the base rocket IS designed for crew. The only thing AFAIK that would make it "designed for crew" is a whole lot of NASA paperwork, and some throttling profiles to reduce peak accelerations.
There’s a lot more for consideration. All that “NASA paperwork” covers things to ensure the design meets specific risk thresholds.
For example, human-rated system usually are a no-go with a single point of failure that can cause a loss of crew. If that does exist, they either need to redesign or get everyone to agree to the new risk assessment.
For example, human-rated system usually are a no-go with a single point of failure that can cause a loss of crew. If that does exist, they either need to redesign or get everyone to agree to the new risk assessment.
That’s not really a fair comparison. That 3 billion bought us a launch that lasted from July to November. With Falcon Heavy you typically only get the one day.
Yet - they did it. It's actually done now. Amazing feat. NASA should be granted more funding, and in my opinion it should come out of the military budget. That's going to be a controversial opinion, I know.
Indeed, let's take the money earmarked for Space Development Agency / orbital weapons, and instead give it to NASA and the Artemis missions.
How would this solve the massive issue of politicians deciding on the technology based on what will maintain industry and funding for their electorate? Throwing money around isn't actually necessarily the right thing to do, no matter how noble you think a cause is (although in this case obviously that applies to a lot of military projects too).
Maybe it should come out of the politicians budget then
More realistically funding for NASA probably needs to be decoupled from political will in the specifics and it should be allocated a yearly budget that it can spend however it wants with no pork barreling.
With that amount of money they should have had develop a warp drive.
Sarcasm, but not too much.
Sarcasm, but not too much.
It's not just recycled Space Shuttle materials, though - the program (if it ever gets far enough) will run out of recycled Space Shuttle launch hardware after 3 or 4 flights... at which point the plan for additional launches is to use new hardware (theoretically with improved performance) that is still in the process of being designed and built.
To me, that seems to be the worst of both worlds: all the cost and headaches of developing an effectively new launch system, but doing so shackled to a launch vehicle design that's dominated by ideas from the late 60s.
To me, that seems to be the worst of both worlds: all the cost and headaches of developing an effectively new launch system, but doing so shackled to a launch vehicle design that's dominated by ideas from the late 60s.
And in the case of the engines, once those existing engines are used, Aerojet Rocketdyne has to spin up a new assembly line, and they are essentially a sole source contractor, so they can charge nearly whatever they want.
So what started out as a grand idea to reuse old Shuttle hardware ends up with Aerojet Rocketdyne charging $146 million per engine. Each. And there are four of them.
So what started out as a grand idea to reuse old Shuttle hardware ends up with Aerojet Rocketdyne charging $146 million per engine. Each. And there are four of them.
Those engines were designed to be re-usable and each were used on multiple Space Shuttle flights. Besides the huge cost, it seems super wasteful to be strapping them on to an expendable rocket!
Just a little reminder:
These taxpayer dollars aren't gone, they flow back into the economy. It makes tens of thousands of jobs possible.
People reacted the same over the price of the Perseverance (2.75bn) project, as if somehow all that money was now on the surface of Mars.
These taxpayer dollars aren't gone, they flow back into the economy. It makes tens of thousands of jobs possible.
People reacted the same over the price of the Perseverance (2.75bn) project, as if somehow all that money was now on the surface of Mars.
The point is that there are multiple ways to spend that money in a way that makes "thousands of jobs possible". You could fund healthcare, and spend the money for doctors, nurses and infrastructure.
Or you could spend it on education. Or research.
It's good in my opinion to have the conversation.
As an aside, I believe "creating jobs" should not be a societal goal. Making sure everyone can live a dignified life is.
Or you could spend it on education. Or research.
It's good in my opinion to have the conversation.
As an aside, I believe "creating jobs" should not be a societal goal. Making sure everyone can live a dignified life is.
Some of the money trickled down into fundamental rocket related research.
Lots of the money went into the pockets of tens of thousands of tradesmen and tradeswomen -- welders, fabricators, machinists, NDT technicians, etc -- who further developed their skills, passed it onto newer generations of workers, and ensured manufacturing skills don't become lost to time. The same manufacturing skills that will be used to make the technology and infrastructure we need to continue to live dignified, modern lives.
It went into the pockets of engineers -- who continue on a tradition of engineering established since the first space race. Some of them would have taught and mentored the ones who would go on to make rockets at all the New Space startups, including SpaceX. Others will take their skills to other fields.
It went into the pockets of hundreds of small businesses who contract with the makers of the SLS.
Could we have been wiser with the money? Can we be more effective? Sure. But it is not all for naught and quite frankly if we are to continue as a modern first world society, making sure the skills and tech that go into making a rocket stay alive is just as important as funding healthcare, education and research.
And tonight, there will be some kids inspired by the footage of the most powerful rocket ever made by humans to pursue careers in manufacturing and engineering.
This is not just "creating jobs." This is making sure another piece of a cornerstone of American technological dominance stays alive so we can continue to maintain the standard of living we have now.
$23 billion is a small price to pay. Social media sites have been sold for much more.
Lots of the money went into the pockets of tens of thousands of tradesmen and tradeswomen -- welders, fabricators, machinists, NDT technicians, etc -- who further developed their skills, passed it onto newer generations of workers, and ensured manufacturing skills don't become lost to time. The same manufacturing skills that will be used to make the technology and infrastructure we need to continue to live dignified, modern lives.
It went into the pockets of engineers -- who continue on a tradition of engineering established since the first space race. Some of them would have taught and mentored the ones who would go on to make rockets at all the New Space startups, including SpaceX. Others will take their skills to other fields.
It went into the pockets of hundreds of small businesses who contract with the makers of the SLS.
Could we have been wiser with the money? Can we be more effective? Sure. But it is not all for naught and quite frankly if we are to continue as a modern first world society, making sure the skills and tech that go into making a rocket stay alive is just as important as funding healthcare, education and research.
And tonight, there will be some kids inspired by the footage of the most powerful rocket ever made by humans to pursue careers in manufacturing and engineering.
This is not just "creating jobs." This is making sure another piece of a cornerstone of American technological dominance stays alive so we can continue to maintain the standard of living we have now.
$23 billion is a small price to pay. Social media sites have been sold for much more.
> This is not just "creating jobs." This is making sure another piece of a cornerstone of American technological dominance stays alive so we can continue to maintain the standard of living we have now.
There's something deeply disturbing in this passage. I hope I'm not the only one seeing it. It sounds like you think the global stage is a zero sum game, and the only way to maintain the current standard of living is to assert dominance.
To clarify with an example: in a group stranded on a desert island, without enough food for the whole group, I think a good strategy would be:
* share the available food fairly
* work to get more food
The mindset of the passage I quoted would probably lead people in this situation to, instead, try to get as much food as possible for themselves.
There's something deeply disturbing in this passage. I hope I'm not the only one seeing it. It sounds like you think the global stage is a zero sum game, and the only way to maintain the current standard of living is to assert dominance.
To clarify with an example: in a group stranded on a desert island, without enough food for the whole group, I think a good strategy would be:
* share the available food fairly
* work to get more food
The mindset of the passage I quoted would probably lead people in this situation to, instead, try to get as much food as possible for themselves.
> There's something deeply disturbing in this passage. I hope I'm not the only one seeing it.
Yes. This "disturbing thing" is, unfortunately, the cold, hard reality of the world.
> In a group stranded on a desert island, without enough food for the whole group, I think a good strategy would be: \n\n* share the available food fairly\n\n* work to get more food
Yes. Unfortunately, the entire recorded history and everything you see happening every day provides an unending stream of hard evidence that this strategy is not naturally possible for humans to take. The entire enterprise of society and civilization is, in a sense, about making it so that people take your strategy more often than the obvious one, which is for groups and individuals to hoard enough to minimize perceived risk to their own survival.
Additionally, the idea behind a competitive, free market, is that this very nature can be exploited for good of all, if the effort can be directed towards methods of hoarding that actually grow the pie.
I'm not an American, but I do recognize that "American technological dominance" in this technology is a big part of what kept my neighborhood (Europe) in peace for the past few decades. Americans would be wise to recognize that this is a big part of what makes your country rich.
I don't think GP sees space industry, or the economy, as zero-sum game in an absolute sense. But it obviously is in the relative sense, and it's the relative sense that also translates into geopolitical importance.
(And FWIW, I suspect bringing this up is another kind of "make people complaining about space industry funding go away", because again, this kind of argument typically resonates with them. Commercial and scientific space sectors, as well as enthusiasts, tend to lean towards cooperation, "citizens of the world" kind of thinking. Space exploration is actually one of those things that encourage this view.)
Yes. This "disturbing thing" is, unfortunately, the cold, hard reality of the world.
> In a group stranded on a desert island, without enough food for the whole group, I think a good strategy would be: \n\n* share the available food fairly\n\n* work to get more food
Yes. Unfortunately, the entire recorded history and everything you see happening every day provides an unending stream of hard evidence that this strategy is not naturally possible for humans to take. The entire enterprise of society and civilization is, in a sense, about making it so that people take your strategy more often than the obvious one, which is for groups and individuals to hoard enough to minimize perceived risk to their own survival.
Additionally, the idea behind a competitive, free market, is that this very nature can be exploited for good of all, if the effort can be directed towards methods of hoarding that actually grow the pie.
I'm not an American, but I do recognize that "American technological dominance" in this technology is a big part of what kept my neighborhood (Europe) in peace for the past few decades. Americans would be wise to recognize that this is a big part of what makes your country rich.
I don't think GP sees space industry, or the economy, as zero-sum game in an absolute sense. But it obviously is in the relative sense, and it's the relative sense that also translates into geopolitical importance.
(And FWIW, I suspect bringing this up is another kind of "make people complaining about space industry funding go away", because again, this kind of argument typically resonates with them. Commercial and scientific space sectors, as well as enthusiasts, tend to lean towards cooperation, "citizens of the world" kind of thinking. Space exploration is actually one of those things that encourage this view.)
> Some of the money trickled down into fundamental rocket related research.
Is how to use seventies-era parts to build a new rocket really a field of research?
Is how to use seventies-era parts to build a new rocket really a field of research?
Well, not directly SLS itself but some of the money probably allowed the NASA centers to keep their lights on and allow for their researchers to go off and do their own thing.
> Or you could spend it on education. Or research.
Or military. Or political campaigns. Or grift.
> It's good in my opinion to have the conversation.
This conversation has been had to death. NASA gets table scraps anyway. Also this whole program is research, and of the quite practical kind.
> As an aside, I believe "creating jobs" should not be a societal goal.
It's not. It's just something that's being brought up to make the people saying to gut NASA "because education! healthcare!" go away, because it usually resonates with them.
> Making sure everyone can live a dignified life is.
Yes, that's the long-term point of the whole endeavor, and of possible line items on the Federal budget, space historically had quite a good ROI here.
Or military. Or political campaigns. Or grift.
> It's good in my opinion to have the conversation.
This conversation has been had to death. NASA gets table scraps anyway. Also this whole program is research, and of the quite practical kind.
> As an aside, I believe "creating jobs" should not be a societal goal.
It's not. It's just something that's being brought up to make the people saying to gut NASA "because education! healthcare!" go away, because it usually resonates with them.
> Making sure everyone can live a dignified life is.
Yes, that's the long-term point of the whole endeavor, and of possible line items on the Federal budget, space historically had quite a good ROI here.
agreed, but in this case this is of course a part of the package deal: the only way for nasa to get their sls is to be a glorified jobs program for congress. So the price must be seen in that light, too. A clean comparison on price may not be possible.
If we start having that conversation, we should start with big-item parts of the budget, e.g. the military.
Couldn't agree more.
I was not aware of how the NASA budget compares to US military spending, so I just looked it up.
In Fiscal year 2022 the DoD had $1.94 Trillion allocated to it. Or $1,940 billions. NASA's budget in FY 2022 is $30.62 Billion.
So reducing military spending by 1/64th will free up as many resources as closing NASA altogether.
I was not aware of how the NASA budget compares to US military spending, so I just looked it up.
In Fiscal year 2022 the DoD had $1.94 Trillion allocated to it. Or $1,940 billions. NASA's budget in FY 2022 is $30.62 Billion.
So reducing military spending by 1/64th will free up as many resources as closing NASA altogether.
Great you looked it up, and thanks for posting fresh numbers!
In such conversation, it's also important to look at the return of investment, note the diminishing returns of large endeavors, and consider the exploration-exploitation dilemma[0].
The way I see it:
1. Americans would definitely want to cut down the military spending a bit, because of diminishing returns/waste and how it perverts the US politics (once you have all that combat hardware and trained warriors, you feel the itch to use them). But, despite popular opinion, I think it's important to remember that this military spending is buying relative calm and peace for the entire Western world, so it's not all wasted. Unfortunate reality of human condition is that, until we invent some new, surprising technologies (including social technologies), militaries will be needed to maintain peace.
2. Healthcare and education in the US arguably has more than enough money. The problem isn't the funds, it's their allocation, and the corruption.
3. NASA is, for the most part, your most high-tech part of the "exploration" arm of the exploration/exploitation tradeoff (whereas education, healthcare, and anything you could describe related to maintaining a standard of life, is on the "exploitation" side). US is already (IMO) spending too much on the exploitation side relative to exploration, compared to optimum, so if you want to rebalance the budget, I'd focus on cutting some exploitation spending (but, for your own self-preservation, add some more money to infrastructure maintenance).
--
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit
In such conversation, it's also important to look at the return of investment, note the diminishing returns of large endeavors, and consider the exploration-exploitation dilemma[0].
The way I see it:
1. Americans would definitely want to cut down the military spending a bit, because of diminishing returns/waste and how it perverts the US politics (once you have all that combat hardware and trained warriors, you feel the itch to use them). But, despite popular opinion, I think it's important to remember that this military spending is buying relative calm and peace for the entire Western world, so it's not all wasted. Unfortunate reality of human condition is that, until we invent some new, surprising technologies (including social technologies), militaries will be needed to maintain peace.
2. Healthcare and education in the US arguably has more than enough money. The problem isn't the funds, it's their allocation, and the corruption.
3. NASA is, for the most part, your most high-tech part of the "exploration" arm of the exploration/exploitation tradeoff (whereas education, healthcare, and anything you could describe related to maintaining a standard of life, is on the "exploitation" side). US is already (IMO) spending too much on the exploitation side relative to exploration, compared to optimum, so if you want to rebalance the budget, I'd focus on cutting some exploitation spending (but, for your own self-preservation, add some more money to infrastructure maintenance).
--
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit
>military spending is buying relative calm and peace for the entire Western world
I get the whole monopoly of violence logic here but remember your clarifying, end point. "the entire Western world".
Because go ask anyone from the middle east if they think the US military is buying calm and peace.
I get the whole monopoly of violence logic here but remember your clarifying, end point. "the entire Western world".
Because go ask anyone from the middle east if they think the US military is buying calm and peace.
You’re missing the key piece: we can still spend the money on NASA programs but demand 10x more productivity and cost reduction of their vehicles. Let’s see them turn on a dime and out compete any private venture.
So all points still stand: money goes into the economy and jobs, but the workforce becomes more competent, cost aware and sharp.
So all points still stand: money goes into the economy and jobs, but the workforce becomes more competent, cost aware and sharp.
I don't think you can just cut funding to NASA and expect them to become more efficient. They'll just do less with the same efficiency they have.
The issue here is that a lot of what NASA does is not driven by current market needs. They're doing speculative, curiosity-driven R&D, on the extreme end of the "exploration" arm of exploration/exploitation tradeoff. Even though evidence to date tells us NASA spending (and space exploration in general) has a huge RoI, and there's good reason to suspect it'll continue to be huge indefinitely, it's not easy to quantify in terms and on time horizons the market understands[0]. NASA having less money just means less R&D being done.
Now, I agree the way they go about things could be improved in terms of efficiency. But, unlike with for-profit companies, budget is the wrong knob to turn. Something else must be changed. I have no idea what[1].
Also, one has to be careful comparing e.g. SpaceX and NASA in terms of costs, because for the former, rocketry is a service they sell. NASA isn't there to be in the business of affordable rocket launches, it's there to be in the business of expanding what's possible.
--
[0] - In particular, the market has a really hard time dealing with the idea of work that enriches the society at large - which, from company/investor point of view, is just enriching random third parties.
[1] - In a sense, using money for this in the market economy is a way to side-step figuring out what the problem is - the threat of running out of money makes the companies individually try and do something, and either it works or they die. Obviously, this approach can't work in non-profit R&D.
The issue here is that a lot of what NASA does is not driven by current market needs. They're doing speculative, curiosity-driven R&D, on the extreme end of the "exploration" arm of exploration/exploitation tradeoff. Even though evidence to date tells us NASA spending (and space exploration in general) has a huge RoI, and there's good reason to suspect it'll continue to be huge indefinitely, it's not easy to quantify in terms and on time horizons the market understands[0]. NASA having less money just means less R&D being done.
Now, I agree the way they go about things could be improved in terms of efficiency. But, unlike with for-profit companies, budget is the wrong knob to turn. Something else must be changed. I have no idea what[1].
Also, one has to be careful comparing e.g. SpaceX and NASA in terms of costs, because for the former, rocketry is a service they sell. NASA isn't there to be in the business of affordable rocket launches, it's there to be in the business of expanding what's possible.
--
[0] - In particular, the market has a really hard time dealing with the idea of work that enriches the society at large - which, from company/investor point of view, is just enriching random third parties.
[1] - In a sense, using money for this in the market economy is a way to side-step figuring out what the problem is - the threat of running out of money makes the companies individually try and do something, and either it works or they die. Obviously, this approach can't work in non-profit R&D.
Boeing isn't building the SLS for free. The cost-plus contract for SLS benefits profit seeking companies even more than 'commercial space'.
Yes, but. Boeing is a tricky case, because it's a strategic company for the US - in the actual, military/security sense of the word: the US government is willing to burn money with them in peace time, so their expertise and factories exist and are available during war time.
They aren't really taxpayer dollars in this case, it's borrowed or printed money that hits people directly via inflation.
Broken window fallacy. Doing the same things cheaper is good. SLA is a disgrace.
Hmm making the comparison to the Falcon Heavy is unfair. It's meant to launch stuff into orbit while the SLS is meant to carry humans to Mars.
[deleted]
If you want to compare SLS and Starship, just recall that the SLS started development after the Falcon 1 flew and at that time SpaceX had been talking about a SuperHeavy for 6 years. Work on the Raptor engines started around the same time. If you hold them to the original launch date, in terms of "time since deal signing", we already would have seen the return of the 9 people who paid for a flight around the moon on a Starship.
In the grand scheme of things, I don't care about 11 billion as much as I care that it's done and moving.
Also, I cannot find a wikipedia citation for $3 billion/launch. I found one for $2.3 billion/year for SLS launches.
In the grand scheme of things, I don't care about 11 billion as much as I care that it's done and moving.
Also, I cannot find a wikipedia citation for $3 billion/launch. I found one for $2.3 billion/year for SLS launches.
the Wikipedia page for SLS references
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-22-003.pdf
> We project the cost to fly a single SLS/Orion system through at least Artemis IV to be $4.1 billion per launch at a cadence of approximately one mission per year.
> The cost per launch was calculated as follows: $1 billion for the Orion based on information provided by ESD officials and NASA OIG analysis; $300 million for the ESA’s Service Module based on the value of a barter agreement between ESA and the United States in which ESA provides the service modules in exchange for offsetting its ISS responsibilities; $2.2 billion for the SLS based on program budget submissions and analysis of contracts; and $568 million for EGS costs related to the SLS/Orion launch as provided by ESD officials.
> We project the cost to fly a single SLS/Orion system through at least Artemis IV to be $4.1 billion per launch at a cadence of approximately one mission per year.
> The cost per launch was calculated as follows: $1 billion for the Orion based on information provided by ESD officials and NASA OIG analysis; $300 million for the ESA’s Service Module based on the value of a barter agreement between ESA and the United States in which ESA provides the service modules in exchange for offsetting its ISS responsibilities; $2.2 billion for the SLS based on program budget submissions and analysis of contracts; and $568 million for EGS costs related to the SLS/Orion launch as provided by ESD officials.
Oh, if you go beyond the SLS itself to include all the ancillary costs, then yeah. But adding those same ancillary costs to Starship (assuming it costs SpaceX $150MM to launch it) brings the total to over $2 billion/launch. The payload, people on the ground working for months during the mission, etc. are all included.
> Oh, if you go beyond the SLS itself to include all the ancillary costs, then yeah. But adding those same ancillary costs to Starship (assuming it costs SpaceX $150MM to launch it) brings the total to over $2 billion/launch.
Gonna need a source for that.
Gonna need a source for that.
I just used the same inspector general report as the person I was responding to. Literally that PDF. If you read how they determined $4.1 billion/launch, and change the SLS line item to "Starship, $150MM" it runs to over $2 billion a launch.
Falcon heavy has been under development at spaceX since 2006 and has cost them about $37B :)
Where did you get this $37 billion number? I don’t think SpaceX has had $37B of investment or revenue.
The only figure for the development cost i can find online is “more than $500 million.”
From https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/13/spacex-falcon-heavy-rocket-o...
The only figure for the development cost i can find online is “more than $500 million.”
From https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/13/spacex-falcon-heavy-rocket-o...
It's obviously inflated, as I took the whole lifecycle of the company and technically they still haven't completed it yet (Because that and starship is what the whole company has been working towards since inception)
They've received around $10B[0] in funding. About 3.2B [1] in fed payment, with about $13B, in appropriated funding. I would say they've launched a number of private missions as well that made them a profit.
[0]https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/space-exploration-te... [1]https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?q=spacex+UEI_NAME%3A...
They've received around $10B[0] in funding. About 3.2B [1] in fed payment, with about $13B, in appropriated funding. I would say they've launched a number of private missions as well that made them a profit.
[0]https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/space-exploration-te... [1]https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?q=spacex+UEI_NAME%3A...
Now do the cost for SLS based on the total cost to date for NASA and all contractors since inception, including the costs for Apollo and the shuttle.
This is not just inflated, it’s 100% bogus - this is not a reasonable way to estimate development costs for a launch vehicle.
This is not just inflated, it’s 100% bogus - this is not a reasonable way to estimate development costs for a launch vehicle.
well NASA does alot more than launches. They have telescopes, a portion of the ISS, and generally conducts advanced research on exploration.
>Now do the cost for SLS based on the total cost to date for NASA and all contractors since inception, including the costs for Apollo and the shuttle.
But I would agree with that sentiment if you only included rocket development. It's not just the cost of that vehicle but also the total cost of the institutional knowledge to get there. Starship might cost _X_, but it's because you already developed reusability and the ability to land the boosters.
Also, the biggest difference between spaceX and nasa is spaceX is verticly integrated where NASA avoids the development of alot of manufacturing capability.
>Now do the cost for SLS based on the total cost to date for NASA and all contractors since inception, including the costs for Apollo and the shuttle.
But I would agree with that sentiment if you only included rocket development. It's not just the cost of that vehicle but also the total cost of the institutional knowledge to get there. Starship might cost _X_, but it's because you already developed reusability and the ability to land the boosters.
Also, the biggest difference between spaceX and nasa is spaceX is verticly integrated where NASA avoids the development of alot of manufacturing capability.
Couldn't NASA have put a little of its giant budget into a presentation that's more appealing than a Wordpress blogpost? I don't think it would just be sugarcoating. Millions of people are passionate about space and billions were around the first moon landing. SpaceX has done a great job reviving this space age excitement with their pre launch interviews, life coverage and analysis. NASA could easily have done the same by directing 0.0001% of their funding to this aspect, but for some reason chose not to.
I'm not sure if we were watching the same livestream, but the official launch livestream was incredibly high-budget and high production values. Felt like you were watching a trailer for Top Gun or Interstellar. It's really funny to me that SpaceX fanboys can't set aside their polemics against SLS for five seconds despite a pitch-perfect launch while Starship fumbles about with inordinate delays and cost overruns -- the exact same thing SLS is most criticized for.
[deleted]
Yea the whole magenta-orange theme is extremely cliche and does not sit with the legendary worm logo. Looks like a cheap SaaS startup presentation.
NASA needs a better brand management team with swift authority to demand sub teams to abide by the identity standards.
NASA needs a better brand management team with swift authority to demand sub teams to abide by the identity standards.
Why?
What was wrong with the interviews that NASA did? Some of the celeb stuff didn't do it for me, but know it probably does for some people. And it was neat that they talked to so many Apollo people.
I also thought it was cool that they brought the red team in for an interview shortly after launch. That's not really something they could've planned in advance, but it was super entertaining.
I also thought it was cool that they brought the red team in for an interview shortly after launch. That's not really something they could've planned in advance, but it was super entertaining.
Red Team makes the rocket run on time. Loved that they brought them out.
jzd131(11)
When will society stop wasting time with chemical rocketry and start work on the only scalable approach to space travel with nuclear propulsion. We've wasted over 60 years of development pursuing a path that is physically impossible to lead to real space travel (the energy density/mass of chemical propellants means we waste an enormous amount of energy just moving the propellant into space, let alone the actual payload).
You’re proposing that we should be using nuclear propulsion to get mass from earth’s surface to earth orbit?
The only proposed method of doing this that I’m aware of is nuclear pulse propulsion like project Orion. I think there are a few pretty legitimate reasons that we’re not doing that.
The only proposed method of doing this that I’m aware of is nuclear pulse propulsion like project Orion. I think there are a few pretty legitimate reasons that we’re not doing that.
A nuclear salt water rocket has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 40, so you could presumably use a NSWR to launch payloads to orbit. If you're going to turn the launch pad into a radioactive wasteland, might as well go all the way :).
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php...
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php...
Seems like a weird take to me. Chemical rocketry can meet all of our space "needs" (e.g. satellite launches) and many of our space "wants" (e.g. solar system exploration, large space telescopes). The "chemical" part of chemical rocketry has proven to be pretty economical - the fuel itself is just a small portion of the cost of a rocket. It's building the thing that's expensive.
Why incur the safety hazards of nuclear propulsion or the large fixed costs of something like a sky crane when we've just developed reusable rockets?
Why incur the safety hazards of nuclear propulsion or the large fixed costs of something like a sky crane when we've just developed reusable rockets?
Service module fairing jettison, launch abort system jettison complete : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/service-module-fai...
Core stage main engine cutoff, core stage separation complete : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/11/16/core-stage-main-en...