Page 20 of 29 FirstFirst ...
10
18
19
20
21
22
... LastLast
  1. #381
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    33,624
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Its okay, NASA is way ahead of your concerns. Like I don't even know what to say at this point after repeating the fact that SLS is only the first to go in and the more commercial agencies follow. Research and development 101. SLS literally needs the commercial agencies to land on the Moon as a commitment to hand off the process.

    You can't streamline a process before you've know where the kinks are...makes no logical sense.


    Unless you argument is we shouldn't be going back to the Moon at all...whole different discussion.
    So at some point doesn't Starliner take over the SLS, in lift capacity? Or is there more to the calculus in getting to the moon than straight life capacity?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Once it passes the basic tests to launch you get 1 uncrewed launch, usually only delayed by weather at that point, and then a crewed launch. They tend to work out the bugs before they end up killing people or destroying billions in equipment.
    But those "bugs" are usually what delay the flights, or cancel them altogether. And keep in mind that SLS capsule (I'm forgetting the name) had a flaw so deep that they literally couldn't fix it, and just left the design, with the flaw, for launch. You're making it sound like the crewed launch is almost a foregone conclusion rather than an entirely new set of tests and qualifications. Obviously there would be some overlap, a LOT in fact, but still a great deal to do. And the SLS still hasn't even launched yet.

    Don't get me wrong, after we lost the Russians for getting our peeps up into and then farther into space, I'm glad for anyone to come along and lift some stuff up. But the SLS has only had one failing after another. Assuming they won't have more is pretty optimistic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Unless you’re Musk and happy to just waste the money like we did in the early days before people died in accidents.
    You need to go find another venue for this emotional need to shit all over SpaceX vis a vis Musk. You're dipping into the unhealthy obsession pool by now. Hell, even I agree Musk is a personal shithole, but SpaceX is an unbridled, and unmatched success, by every and any objective standard.

  2. #382
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    But SLS isn't trying to provide "another" flags-and-footprints Moon program. The SLS is working with other agencies, including SpaceX, to deliver humans to the Moon, along with an orbital station and then a base on the moon.
    SLS's primary mission is to consume federal funds. Any real moon program using SpaceX + SLS will optimize to 100% SpaceX, 0% SLS. It's an expensive white elephant that we neither need nor have any use for.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    People have said this exact shit about NASA since it was created. They have been consistently wrong since it was created. Good luck with that.
    Actually, the critics have been right. Apollo was a monstrous dead end. The space shuttle was a total failure at the thing (reducing cost to orbit) that was its justification. The space station has been almost completely useless.

    SLS continues the NASA manned spaceflight tradition of providing bullshit for the gullible.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  3. #383
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    24,685
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I do keep getting those switched around in my mind. Thanks for the clarification. I am glad that we'll have more soon-to-be-crew capable launch platforms available.

    The news about Starship is exciting.




    How does SLS being success establish the foundation, when SpaceX already did it? I'm not quite following your thinking here. Help me out.




    Will be amazing if we can ever get back there. IIRC, one of the bigger "sub" issues is getting better suits, and that ship is still at the dock, right?
    SLS's goal is to get people on the Moon. We haven't done that in decades and even when we did it was in a very rough touch and go fashion. We're almost doing from scratch. Because of that there's a lot of risks involved, processes to iron out. SLS assumes the risk of being the first in using old proven methods while testing new ones. It will be the sole rocket taking astronauts to Moon for 3 or 4, gathering important data that will be used for following missions.

    SpaceX's Starship is already expected to replace SLS assuming Starship meets all of its requirements. But only after NASA has established a set of rules/safe practices, etc through SLS Moon landings. SLS will also deploy infrastructure to support later missions. No one (unless you're a bureaucrat getting kickbacks) wants to use SLS longer than needed, but a vehicle like SLS is needed to establish that first step.

    Its like saying "why build a concept car when the commercial vehicles will be better". You need a proof of concept first.


    The spacesuit problem might have been solved. NASA dumped whoever the old agency one and brought on two new ones. At the very least there is now some redundancy and not a single point of failure. Actually everything related to getting back to the Moon accelerated first rolled out for tests.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  4. #384
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    SLS's primary mission is to consume federal funds. Any real moon program using SpaceX + SLS will optimize to 100% SpaceX, 0% SLS. It's an expensive white elephant that we neither need nor have any use for.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Actually, the critics have been right. Apollo was a monstrous dead end. The space shuttle was a total failure at the thing (reducing cost to orbit) that was its justification. The space station has been almost completely useless.

    SLS continues the NASA manned spaceflight tradition of providing bullshit for the gullible.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

    - - - Updated - - -
    @cubby those bugs delay the unmanned and wet tests potentially, but that’s just because they detect and address them instead of seeking likes on social media like SpaceX.

  5. #385
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

    - - - Updated - - -
    @cubby those bugs delay the unmanned and wet tests potentially, but that’s just because they detect and address them instead of seeking likes on social media like SpaceX.
    The spinoff argument is also bullshit. The few actual spinoffs are thin on the ground and don't come close to justifying a manned space program. Most of the supposed spinoffs are just the space program claiming for itself a technology that was being developed anyway (integrated circuits are an example of this).
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  6. #386
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    24,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    SLS's primary mission is to consume federal funds. Any real moon program using SpaceX + SLS will optimize to 100% SpaceX, 0% SLS. It's an expensive white elephant that we neither need nor have any use for.
    Starship is no where near being independent. It doesn't even have a cabin for astronauts to survive the journey to the Moon. SpaceX is not sure how it will solve its fueling problem since it can't launch with enough fuel to reach a lunar orbit.

    Actually, the critics have been right. Apollo was a monstrous dead end. The space shuttle was a total failure at the thing (reducing cost to orbit) that was its justification. The space station has been almost completely useless.
    Ah so you just want to hate on NASA, got it.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  7. #387
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Starship is no where near being independent. It doesn't even have a cabin for astronauts to survive the journey to the Moon. SpaceX is not sure how it will solve its fueling problem since it can't launch with enough fuel to reach a lunar orbit.
    A moon program based on Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy would be much cheaper than one based on SLS. Starship would make the discrepancy even more ludicrous, granted.

    Ah so you just want to hate on NASA, got it.
    And you just want to be a delusional NASA fan, got it. I forgive you though, since the culture has been steeped in a pro-NASA spirit that requires a certain level of intellectual courage to question.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  8. #388
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    24,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

    - - - Updated - - -
    @cubby those bugs delay the unmanned and wet tests potentially, but that’s just because they detect and address them instead of seeking likes on social media like SpaceX.
    I'll add to your point. SpaceX has experienced a whole hosts of setbacks with getting their next Starship test off the ground. SpaceX doesn't have to hold public press conferences answering and addressing every problem they run into.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  9. #389
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    33,624
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    SLS's goal is to get people on the Moon. We haven't done that in decades and even when we did it was in a very rough touch and go fashion. We're almost doing from scratch. Because of that there's a lot of risks involved, processes to iron out. SLS assumes the risk of being the first in using old proven methods while testing new ones. It will be the sole rocket taking astronauts to Moon for 3 or 4, gathering important data that will be used for following missions.

    SpaceX's Starship is already expected to replace SLS assuming Starship meets all of its requirements. But only after NASA has established a set of rules/safe practices, etc through SLS Moon landings. SLS will also deploy infrastructure to support later missions. No one (unless you're a bureaucrat getting kickbacks) wants to use SLS longer than needed, but a vehicle like SLS is needed to establish that first step.

    Its like saying "why build a concept car when the commercial vehicles will be better". You need a proof of concept first.


    The spacesuit problem might have been solved. NASA dumped whoever the old agency one and brought on two new ones. At the very least there is now some redundancy and not a single point of failure. Actually everything related to getting back to the Moon accelerated first rolled out for tests.
    The last chart I saw that outlined the Moon program was using both SLS and Starliner to get there - not SLS first, and then Starliner. But I'm the first to admit I could have bad info and/or misunderstood the good info I had.

    What you're saying above, about using the SLS to do it all first (again, lol - kidding, nice subpoint about how the first time we got there was really just a singular purpose mission, rather than the roots to expand - most people don't know that about the Apollo program), makes sense and the proof of concept analogy works there, too.

    I thought NASA dumped them awhile back, and they are still looking for vendors, which means a real working take-it-to-the-moon suit is still years away.

  10. #390
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    24,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    A moon program based on Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy would be much cheaper than one based on SLS. Starship would make the discrepancy even more ludicrous, granted.



    And you just want to be a delusional NASA fan, got it. I forgive you though, since the culture has been steeped in a pro-NASA spirit that requires a certain level of intellectual courage to question.
    You cracked the code!.
    You should call up Musk. Tell him SpaceX could have been using Falcon Heavy to get to the Moon this entire time.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  11. #391
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    The last chart I saw that outlined the Moon program was using both SLS and Starliner to get there - not SLS first, and then Starliner. But I'm the first to admit I could have bad info and/or misunderstood the good info I had.

    What you're saying above, about using the SLS to do it all first (again, lol - kidding, nice subpoint about how the first time we got there was really just a singular purpose mission, rather than the roots to expand - most people don't know that about the Apollo program), makes sense and the proof of concept analogy works there, too.

    I thought NASA dumped them awhile back, and they are still looking for vendors, which means a real working take-it-to-the-moon suit is still years away.
    Sls is the rockets, starliner is the capsule. Both made by boeing.

  12. #392
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    33,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    @cubby those bugs delay the unmanned and wet tests potentially, but that’s just because they detect and address them instead of seeking likes on social media like SpaceX.
    SpaceX doesn't detect and address problems? Wow - no wonder they haven't been able to launch anything, ever. Oh, wait....

    If only reality didn't get in the way of your emotional based problems with SpaceX. But it's adorable to read. Keep at it, we're all enjoying it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Sls is the rockets, starliner is the capsule. Both made by boeing.
    Embarrassingly, I continue to incorrectly interchange starliner and starship.

  13. #393
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    You cracked the code!.
    You should call up Musk. Tell him SpaceX could have been using Falcon Heavy to get to the Moon this entire time.
    Musk has a goal that requires even cheaper launch. I don't know if that goal is achievable, but getting to the moon just on F9/FH is apparently not enough for him. This in no way saves SLS, which is even more expensive than that.

    People at NASA were calling for a moon return using large numbers of smallish launch vehicles, but congress kill all work on the necessary technology (in-space propellant transfer), since they knew it threatened the shuttle-derived launch vehicle gravy train. The goal of the legislators was never to get to the moon, it was to preserve the flow of $$$ to their preferred contractors. In this they were helped by useful idiots who defend this depravity.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  14. #394
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    SpaceX doesn't detect and address problems? Wow - no wonder they haven't been able to launch anything, ever. Oh, wait....

    If only reality didn't get in the way of your emotional based problems with SpaceX. But it's adorable to read. Keep at it, we're all enjoying it.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Embarrassingly, I continue to incorrectly interchange starliner and starship.
    They detect problems, push through, and then address them after a disaster. Or they have in the past. See the numerous failed attempts in the dev process. They’ve started to pull back on just letting shit destroy itself because it gets a ton of clicks.

  15. #395
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    33,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    People at NASA were calling for a moon return using large numbers of smallish launch vehicles, but congress kill all work on the necessary technology (in-space propellant transfer), since they knew it threatened the shuttle-derived launch vehicle gravy train. The goal of the legislators was never to get to the moon, it was to preserve the flow of $$$ to their preferred contractors. In this they were helped by useful idiots who defend this depravity.
    Which, while correct, has nothing to do with this conversation.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    They detect problems, push through, and then address them after a disaster. Or they have in the past. See the numerous failed attempts in the dev process. They’ve started to pull back on just letting shit destroy itself because it gets a ton of clicks.
    Literally nothing you've said in the above is correct. But hey, at least it's fun to read.

  16. #396
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Which, while correct, has nothing to do with this conversation.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Literally nothing you've said in the above is correct. But hey, at least it's fun to read.
    You didn’t see their multiple failed attempts at landing equipment? Want some links?

  17. #397
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    33,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    You didn’t see their multiple failed attempts at landing equipment? Want some links?
    Sorry bud, I'll pass. Your unbalanced emotional hatred for Musk unfortunately clouds your otherwise relatively sound opinion re space exploration. It's a shame, but I'm not going to dive into your little rabbit hole with you.

    SpaceX is an unqualified success, in every measure. To say otherwise is to ignore facts and reality. You could even argue they galvanized the space program entirely.

  18. #398
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    24,685
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    The last chart I saw that outlined the Moon program was using both SLS and Starliner to get there - not SLS first, and then Starliner. But I'm the first to admit I could have bad info and/or misunderstood the good info I had.

    What you're saying above, about using the SLS to do it all first (again, lol - kidding, nice subpoint about how the first time we got there was really just a singular purpose mission, rather than the roots to expand - most people don't know that about the Apollo program), makes sense and the proof of concept analogy works there, too.

    I thought NASA dumped them awhile back, and they are still looking for vendors, which means a real working take-it-to-the-moon suit is still years away.
    When I say 'first' I mean the first ones taking astronauts to xyz destination vs what the other user is talking about - waiting for SpaceX to be able to do it on its own.

    The chart you're talking about is using SLS (NASA) and Starship (SpaceX). SLS doesn't have a lander so it will use Starship. The state of the Starship SpaceX delivers depends on how far along SpaceX gets with its design. Could be an empty shell, could actually have accommodations for the astronauts. SLS doesn't actually need Starship to be its lander but SpaceX offered to do it cheaper than any one else and will mostly take over for NASA after the intital missions anyway.

    Wrapping all that up, when we land astronauts on the Moon, they will ride to an orbit around the Moon aboard SLS. Starship will land them onto the surface of the Moon and return to their capsule when it's time to go. The capsule will return the astronauts to Earth. NASA wants to remove SLS from the process ASAP so that later trips will only involve Starship (or whatever commercial agency if one catches up).

    -------

    On the spacesuits. They picked the new vendors about 2 weeks ago. Hopefully the companies were picked because they were closer to production...hopefully.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post

    People at NASA were calling for a moon return using large numbers of smallish launch vehicles, but congress kill all work on the necessary technology (in-space propellant transfer), since they knew it threatened the shuttle-derived launch vehicle gravy train. The goal of the legislators was never to get to the moon, it was to preserve the flow of $$$ to their preferred contractors. In this they were helped by useful idiots who defend this depravity.
    I don't dispute that. I've made the same argument myself. You said SLS isn't viable as if it's not going to work or do what is designed to do. Everyone knows it's expensive. Everyone knows the program got screwed by Congress and could have been cheaper. The thing is built now. It's going to Moon. Unless you have a time machine there's no point in complaining now. Relax.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  19. #399
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    33,624
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    When I say 'first' I mean the first ones taking astronauts to xyz destination vs what the other user is talking about - waiting for SpaceX to be able to do it on its own.

    The chart you're talking about is using SLS (NASA) and Starship (SpaceX). SLS doesn't have a lander so it will use Starship. The state of the Starship SpaceX delivers depends on how far along SpaceX gets with its design. Could be an empty shell, could actually have accommodations for the astronauts. SLS doesn't actually need Starship to be its lander but SpaceX offered to do it cheaper than any one else and will mostly take over for NASA after the intital missions anyway.

    Wrapping all that up, when we land astronauts on the Moon, they will ride to an orbit around the Moon aboard SLS. Starship will land them onto the surface of the Moon and return to their capsule when it's time to go. The capsule will return the astronauts to Earth. NASA wants to remove SLS from the process ASAP so that later trips will only involve Starship (or whatever commercial agency if one catches up).

    -------

    On the spacesuits. They picked the new vendors about 2 weeks ago. Hopefully the companies were picked because they were closer to production...hopefully.
    Ok, that was the general picture I had from that chart I so unceremoniously didn't link. Thanks for that summary. I really hope it works out. Sounds like solid and mostly proven tech with some windows built in for making it better/faster. The moon orbit base alone will be terrific. To actually have a base on the ground there would be insane.

    Fingers crossed re the spacesuits.

  20. #400
    Banned Lilithvia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    No matter the topic, someone will find a way to redirect it to complain about their current aggro.
    Posts
    4,104
    Watching the NASA Capstone launch livestream. Same asswipe that ruined Launch America is commentating and acting like we are children who need a HALO orbit explained to us. Yuck.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    When I say 'first' I mean the first ones taking astronauts to xyz destination vs what the other user is talking about - waiting for SpaceX to be able to do it on its own.

    The chart you're talking about is using SLS (NASA) and Starship (SpaceX). SLS doesn't have a lander so it will use Starship. The state of the Starship SpaceX delivers depends on how far along SpaceX gets with its design. Could be an empty shell, could actually have accommodations for the astronauts. SLS doesn't actually need Starship to be its lander but SpaceX offered to do it cheaper than any one else and will mostly take over for NASA after the intital missions anyway.

    Wrapping all that up, when we land astronauts on the Moon, they will ride to an orbit around the Moon aboard SLS. Starship will land them onto the surface of the Moon and return to their capsule when it's time to go. The capsule will return the astronauts to Earth. NASA wants to remove SLS from the process ASAP so that later trips will only involve Starship (or whatever commercial agency if one catches up).

    -------

    On the spacesuits. They picked the new vendors about 2 weeks ago. Hopefully the companies were picked because they were closer to production...hopefully.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I don't dispute that. I've made the same argument myself. You said SLS isn't viable as if it's not going to work or do what is designed to do. Everyone knows it's expensive. Everyone knows the program got screwed by Congress and could have been cheaper. The thing is built now. It's going to Moon. Unless you have a time machine there's no point in complaining now. Relax.
    I see nowhere official that it has been confirmed that Starship will take over entirely for SLS. It's speculated for Mars, but even then SLS is built to be upgraded to send missions to Mars itself. I expect the two to be part of a dissimilar architecture for Mars, Io, and Titan long term.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •