Space Travel & Exploration

[cubby]

Do you honestly believe that? You and I both know you simply don't want to accept anything that confirms your world view is wrong.

Don't get me wrong, SpaceX is great, but they aren't as infallible as you've repeatedly suggested they are.

Same for literally every entity who engages in spaceflight, including NASA.

That aside, NASA didn't "beg" the DoD to use Shuttle; in fact, I don't think I've seen you once post anything to back YOUR claim up. However, we've posted numerous times that Shuttle was designed by committee; and that the DoD insisted the Shuttle payload bay be a certain size *while* shuttle was still nothing more than a paper rocket.


On top of that, the proposed Polaris mission for Hubble to reboost it *will* require shuttle hardware to connect to the attachment points that Hubble has, because that's literally how they were designed, built, and installed, to attach to Shuttle's CanadArm. Starship might or might not need a Canadarm for the mission, but it will need hardware capable of interfacing with those attachment points.

So if you want to continue on like this, you should probably make like Odysseus and get lost.

Did you happen to provide data to back up your claim?

- - - Updated - - -

Still waiting for you to link articles to prove your argument.

See question above about you providing data to prove your claim.

[Osmeric]

Still waiting for you to link articles to prove your argument.
Until then, you get the treatment Muto gets over in the NCAAF.

Let's look here: http://www.astronautix.com/s/shuttle.html

Then the Nixon administration burst NASA's balloon. The future NASA budget would be only a fraction of Apollo-program levels. There would be no moon bases, no flights to Mars, no nuclear interplanetary stages, no space stations, no more Saturn V's, no space tugs. There wouldn't even be a space shuttle unless NASA could get the development cost down and also convince the US Air Force to use the shuttle for its launch requirements.

NASA was counting on a fantasy of future programs to provide enough launches to justify a shuttle. But those programs didn't exist. So they were forced to serve DoD or else have the shuttle cancelled.

As it stands, the shuttle never could have achieved those flight rates anyway. It was simply too large a technological leap. And at low flight rates, as that page points out, the fixed costs at NASA inflated the cost of a shuttle launch beyond what expendable launchers were already delivering.

The economic models NASA was using to justify Shuttle were very suspect. Here's an interesting link from Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1973:

https://books.google.com/books?id=qg...%20sky&f=false

Some years later the controversy was simmering into the public press. This rather hyperbolic, but unfortunately in some ways understated, article appeared in 1980:

http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/shu...eColumbia.html

Note the focus on the fraudulent payload model.

I wanted to point to Duke historian Alex Roland's 1985 Discover article "The Space Shuttle: Triumph or Turkey" (where the economic failure of the Shuttle was exploding into public consciousness, at least for those attempting to be conscious.) That article is nowhere online, but this later 2001 article by Roland follows the same arguments, with decades of additional experience behind them:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/spa...space-shuttle/

"An initial selling point was that as a reusable spacecraft the shuttle would cost less to launch than expendable ones. This claim has proved untrue. It’s the world’s most sophisticated launch vehicle, but it is ruinously expensive. In 1971, NASA predicted shuttle development costs would be $5.2 billion. The Congressional Budget Office reported that by the time the shuttle was declared operational in 1982, $19.5 billion had been spent—an overrun of 375 percent. NASA also predicted that the shuttle would cost $10.5 million per flight. It admits now to spending almost half a billion dollars per flight. Even allowing for inflation, NASA’s projections were off by an order of magnitude."

I can find more links if those are not enough for you.

What is especially galling is that it was known from the 1960s that expendable launchers could be made much cheaper by properly understanding how to optimize their economics. In particular, it made no sense to build first stages like aircraft if they were going to be expended. In an aircraft flown thousands of times, it's worthwhile to spend many thousands of dollars to remove 1 pound of mass from the structure (as that increases cumulative payloads by thousands of pounds). In a launch vehicle's first stage, that's not the case. Minimum Cost Design methodology, when applied to expendable launcher design, was showing the possibility for order of magnitude cost reductions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_du...um_cost_design

The sad history of the shuttle decision and its consequences is well known in space policy circles and by knowledgeable space advocates. It's why you're seeing such no holds barred attack on SLS, a program that is even less rational than the shuttle program was.

[PACOX]

Now I know where people got the "SLS is going to blow up at the pad" narrative from and the kind of spiral you have to go down to get there.

I'm absolutely done talking about a program thats been retired for decade.

[Osmeric]

Now I know where people got the "SLS is going to blow up at the pad" narrative from and the kind of spiral you have to go down to get there.

I'm absolutely done talking about a program thats been retired for decade.

I wonder why you are defending the nonsense. The institutional pathology is obvious to anyone who hasn't given in to Stockholm Syndrome.

[arandomuser]

hope the government orders spacex dropped completely now that their ceo is a known russia china simp, let a pro america visionary get the limelight now. of course such a move would garner protest from the "america first" people. but let them whine and drop the scumbag

[plz delete account]

Let's look here: http://www.astronautix.com/s/shuttle.html



NASA was counting on a fantasy of future programs to provide enough launches to justify a shuttle. But those programs didn't exist. So they were forced to serve DoD or else have the shuttle cancelled.

As it stands, the shuttle never could have achieved those flight rates anyway. It was simply too large a technological leap. And at low flight rates, as that page points out, the fixed costs at NASA inflated the cost of a shuttle launch beyond what expendable launchers were already delivering.

The economic models NASA was using to justify Shuttle were very suspect. Here's an interesting link from Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1973:

https://books.google.com/books?id=qg...%20sky&f=false

Some years later the controversy was simmering into the public press. This rather hyperbolic, but unfortunately in some ways understated, article appeared in 1980:

http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/shu...eColumbia.html

Note the focus on the fraudulent payload model.

I wanted to point to Duke historian Alex Roland's 1985 Discover article "The Space Shuttle: Triumph or Turkey" (where the economic failure of the Shuttle was exploding into public consciousness, at least for those attempting to be conscious.) That article is nowhere online, but this later 2001 article by Roland follows the same arguments, with decades of additional experience behind them:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/spa...space-shuttle/

"An initial selling point was that as a reusable spacecraft the shuttle would cost less to launch than expendable ones. This claim has proved untrue. It’s the world’s most sophisticated launch vehicle, but it is ruinously expensive. In 1971, NASA predicted shuttle development costs would be $5.2 billion. The Congressional Budget Office reported that by the time the shuttle was declared operational in 1982, $19.5 billion had been spent—an overrun of 375 percent. NASA also predicted that the shuttle would cost $10.5 million per flight. It admits now to spending almost half a billion dollars per flight. Even allowing for inflation, NASA’s projections were off by an order of magnitude."

I can find more links if those are not enough for you.

What is especially galling is that it was known from the 1960s that expendable launchers could be made much cheaper by properly understanding how to optimize their economics. In particular, it made no sense to build first stages like aircraft if they were going to be expended. In an aircraft flown thousands of times, it's worthwhile to spend many thousands of dollars to remove 1 pound of mass from the structure (as that increases cumulative payloads by thousands of pounds). In a launch vehicle's first stage, that's not the case. Minimum Cost Design methodology, when applied to expendable launcher design, was showing the possibility for order of magnitude cost reductions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_du...um_cost_design

The sad history of the shuttle decision and its consequences is well known in space policy circles and by knowledgeable space advocates. It's why you're seeing such no holds barred attack on SLS, a program that is even less rational than the shuttle program was.

Still waiting for the links to the articles proving "NASA begged DOD to use shuttle"

[cubby]

Still waiting for the links to the articles proving "NASA begged DOD to use shuttle"

Could you please participate more constructively in this thread. And please respond to other's requests when they ask for your links, especially after others have given their at your request.

[PACOX]

Could you please participate more constructively in this thread. And please respond to other's requests when they ask for your links, especially after others have given their at your request.

Well not those links are largely irrelevant to the original conversation and another attempt to further move the goalposts. They did finally yield to a few things in some round about ways. I'm trying to move past it so I'm not going to get too specific.


I like the last paragraph about the feasibility of reusable rockets. It's an interesting conversation, one I think we've had in this thread. Ironically it kind of deflates their stance on Falcon being the only rocket worth flying - makes a case for SLS too. Don't mind touching on that point a bit.


Falcon 9 is largely reusable, which makes it dope. But why don't other agencies follow suit, and why has NASA decided to expend old shuttle parts on SLS or stop recovering its SRBs? NASA recovered the same hardware during the shuttles so what changed? NASA, other agencies, even SpaceX found out that reusable parts are only worth it if if you are doing a frequent amount of launches and the parts you're reusing are easy to refurbish. A lot of agencies don't see enough payloads or it takes too long to refurb parts for it to be worth. SpaceX gets away with because it's frequently launching Starlink satellites, so it's it's own customer. Agencies that normally carry scientific or defensive payloads can simply a new rocket cheaper and/or faster.


Heres another example. The construction of the 2nd SLS is on hold because they are waiting for parts from the first one, specifically the capsule. Reusing parts it's a pathway to cheap rockets and faster turnarounds but usually not unless specific conditions are met.


Like with the shuttles, just because you do something means there's an actual use for it - really if you see someone criticizing SpaceX it's because are tired of SpaceX stans acting basic fundamentals principles don't apply to the SpaceX's fleet regardless of what dreams Musk is selling to investors.

[plz delete account]

On the boosters: SRBs are ridiculously easy to build and maintain, to such a degree it's actually faster and cheaper to just build new ones instead of recovering them, dismantling them, shipping them across the country to Box Elder County, Utah, inspecting them, repairing them, recasting them, shipping them back across the country, rebuilding them, and finally stacking them.

- - - Updated - - -

Could you please participate more constructively in this thread. And please respond to other's requests when they ask for your links, especially after others have given their at your request.

The links were completely irrelevant to what I was asking for, as PACOX pointed out.

[cubby]

The links were completely irrelevant to what I was asking for, as PACOX pointed out.

That doesn't matter. If you're asking for them from others, you must provide them when requested. Where are your links?

Please provide your proof links - or, in lieu of not providing any for your point, please refrain from requesting them going forward. Your choice.

- - - Updated - - -

Well not those links are largely irrelevant to the original conversation and another attempt to further move the goalposts. They did finally yield to a few things in some round about ways. I'm trying to move past it so I'm not going to get too specific.


I like the last paragraph about the feasibility of reusable rockets. It's an interesting conversation, one I think we've had in this thread. Ironically it kind of deflates their stance on Falcon being the only rocket worth flying - makes a case for SLS too. Don't mind touching on that point a bit.


Falcon 9 is largely reusable, which makes it dope. But why don't other agencies follow suit, and why has NASA decided to expend old shuttle parts on SLS or stop recovering its SRBs? NASA recovered the same hardware during the shuttles so what changed? NASA, other agencies, even SpaceX found out that reusable parts are only worth it if if you are doing a frequent amount of launches and the parts you're reusing are easy to refurbish. A lot of agencies don't see enough payloads or it takes too long to refurb parts for it to be worth. SpaceX gets away with because it's frequently launching Starlink satellites, so it's it's own customer. Agencies that normally carry scientific or defensive payloads can simply a new rocket cheaper and/or faster.


Heres another example. The construction of the 2nd SLS is on hold because they are waiting for parts from the first one, specifically the capsule. Reusing parts it's a pathway to cheap rockets and faster turnarounds but usually not unless specific conditions are met.


Like with the shuttles, just because you do something means there's an actual use for it - really if you see someone criticizing SpaceX it's because are tired of SpaceX stans acting basic fundamentals principles don't apply to the SpaceX's fleet regardless of what dreams Musk is selling to investors.

(apologies ahead of time if I've misstated your position)

I'm not entirely following your point about how SLS can mimic what SpaceX has done. SpaceX is the first company to have an active reuseable rocket, and because of that, we're going to get a lot more done in space than we could ever have before. Shit - the U.S. would still be relying on Russia to get our own astronauts up to ISS if it weren't for SpaceX. Let's just take Musk out of the equation, because for many people he's a trigger that takes away from a larger, legitimate conversation.

What do you mean about the bolded part in reference to SpaceX's fleet?

[PACOX]

That doesn't matter. If you're asking for them from others, you must provide them when requested. Where are your links?

Please provide your proof links - or, in lieu of not providing any for your point, please refrain from requesting them going forward. Your choice.

- - - Updated - - -



(apologies ahead of time if I've misstated your position)

I'm not entirely following your point about how SLS can mimic what SpaceX has done. SpaceX is the first company to have an active reuseable rocket, and because of that, we're going to get a lot more done in space than we could ever have before. Shit - the U.S. would still be relying on Russia to get our own astronauts up to ISS if it weren't for SpaceX. Let's just take Musk out of the equation, because for many people he's a trigger that takes away from a larger, legitimate conversation.

What do you mean about the bolded part in reference to SpaceX's fleet?

Not sure where I said SLS can mimic SpaceX but that's not a case I was making. I only mentioned SLS to raise talk about reusability and why its not always better, just like what one of Osmeric's points were. To reiterate, the space shuttles were the first reusable rocket/space vehicle, they only part expended was the orange fuel tank. What the space community quickly found out was that having a reusable craft, in this case the shuttles, is only worth it if you are conducting an xyz number of flights and you can refurb used parts faster than building new ones. The shuttles didn't fly enough, didn't fully use its full potential, to justify reusability. Even so, for 20 years no one touched reusable rockets because it was cheaper to just build new ones. Reusable rockets are good when you're launching A LOT of stuff frequently, like Starlink. Reusable rockets don't hold up when you're only launch say 6 times a year or just about anything thats not a communication satellite/ISS cargo. I brought up SLS is built from the same parts as the space shuttles, SLS's is using reusable parts. NASA rightfully determined SLS doesn't fly enough to recover the parts. Expendable and reusable rockets have their place, never said anything about SLS mimicing SpaceX, if I did, it was a typo.

What do you mean about the bolded part in reference to SpaceX's fleet?

I'm talk about when people embellish aspects of SpaceX's rockets using arguments that don't make sense i.e. comparing the space shuttles and Falcon 9. Two very different craft with different roles, so its odd to even try to compare them. Or claiming Starship is better than SLS, like Starship is a fully operational rocket when two ships are codependent. Theres immutable design processes SpaceX has to go through before Starship can act as an independent deep space rocket. So have can something be better years before the things that make it better can possibly be actualized? Through embellished arguments.

[cubby]

Not sure where I said SLS can mimic SpaceX but that's not a case I was making. I only mentioned SLS to raise talk about reusability and why its not always better, just like what one of Osmeric's points were. To reiterate, the space shuttles were the first reusable rocket/space vehicle, they only part expended was the orange fuel tank. What the space community quickly found out was that having a reusable craft, in this case the shuttles, is only worth it if you are conducting an xyz number of flights and you can refurb used parts faster than building new ones. The shuttles didn't fly enough, didn't fully use its full potential, to justify reusability. Even so, for 20 years no one touched reusable rockets because it was cheaper to just build new ones. Reusable rockets are good when you're launching A LOT of stuff frequently, like Starlink. Reusable rockets don't hold up when you're only launch say 6 times a year or just about anything thats not a communication satellite/ISS cargo. I brought up SLS is built from the same parts as the space shuttles, SLS's is using reusable parts. NASA rightfully determined SLS doesn't fly enough to recover the parts. Expendable and reusable rockets have their place, never said anything about SLS mimicing SpaceX, if I did, it was a typo.

That was my misunderstanding - sorry about that.

Reusability is almost inherently cheaper so long as you can get enough launches out to make the payload cost low, which is your point above. Which is why SpaceX is killing it when it comes to cost-per-kilo of launched material. SpaceX is over 50 launches for the year, and it was a slow year, with many private cargo loads being rescheduled or canceled. They are targeting 100+ for 2023, I bet they'll hit that.

I'm talk about when people embellish aspects of SpaceX's rockets using arguments that don't make sense i.e. comparing the space shuttles and Falcon 9. Two very different craft with different roles, so its odd to even try to compare them. Or claiming Starship is better than SLS, like Starship is a fully operational rocket when two ships are codependent. Theres immutable design processes SpaceX has to go through before Starship can act as an independent deep space rocket. So have can something be better years before the things that make it better can possibly be actualized? Through embellished arguments.

Well, of the two, only SLS has launched. I'm not sure about comparing Falcon 9 to the Space Shuttle - they are too different really to compare any one aspect or their overall mission.

It was my understanding that Starship is an independent launch vehicle - where are you seeing that it's dependent on SLS? Starship and SLS are comingled for the Moon orbit/landing mission, but not for Starship's overall purpose goal. And while you are right, Starship is years away from independent deep space mission, it is designed to do all the things in space.

(I just hope the current CEO can shield SpaceX from Musk's shenanigans)

[PACOX]

That was my misunderstanding - sorry about that.

Reusability is almost inherently cheaper so long as you can get enough launches out to make the payload cost low, which is your point above. Which is why SpaceX is killing it when it comes to cost-per-kilo of launched material. SpaceX is over 50 launches for the year, and it was a slow year, with many private cargo loads being rescheduled or canceled. They are targeting 100+ for 2023, I bet they'll hit that.




Well, of the two, only SLS has launched. I'm not sure about comparing Falcon 9 to the Space Shuttle - they are too different really to compare any one aspect or their overall mission.

It was my understanding that Starship is an independent launch vehicle - where are you seeing that it's dependent on SLS? Starship and SLS are comingled for the Moon orbit/landing mission, but not for Starship's overall purpose goal. And while you are right, Starship is years away from independent deep space mission, it is designed to do all the things in space.

(I just hope the current CEO can shield SpaceX from Musk's shenanigans)

Going to seem like I am throwing shade (I'm not) but I want to see see how many launches SpaceX gets with competition. I want them to prove the market for reusable rockets is strong. Falcon 9 does not really have a peer in the US as other agencies are transitioning to new rockets. More than half of SpaceX's launches are in house opposed to outside customers. I think everyone wants to see how SpaceX holds up in the upcoming generation of rockets.
Falcon Heavy on the other hand under performs (not in power but # of customer) buts also going to enjoy about a year without a domestic peer - a good chance to corner the market.

100 launches in a year would be amazing. If anything it means SpaceX is the best at running through a launch process. I think it's important to realize that doesn't mean 100 customers when evaluating whether or not reusable rockets should be the norm.



On Starship, it's still in early development still will when it (hopefully) makes its first trip to the Moon in 2023, hopefully. Starship has multiple milestones it must hit before that though. They have to master landing, which they barely did successfully once (but landing on the Moon is a lot easier, they can put off landing on Earth). Remember Starship is going to require anywhere between 7 to 20 orbital refuels to make the trip to the Moon, no one has ever done that. There's no infrastructure in place for it, hell you have to consider how you are going to lift the required fuel into orbit. Starship also has no interior at all, it's an empty husk, they have yet to enter a phase where they any kind of testing for human cargo. In fact NASA said screw it, we just want you to get human down to the Moon, we'll worry about getting them off off the Moon if push comes to shove.

Like the shuttles, Starship has a ton of potential but we won't know how practical it is for some time. It could end up making its competition obsolete, or it could end up being a very expensive lunar lander. We will have to wait and see.

[Shadowferal]

NASA Chief Issues Warning About China Banning US Astronauts From Landing on the Moon

[PACOX]

NASA Chief Issues Warning About China Banning US Astronauts From Landing on the Moon

Hate to say it, but the US's new approach to the Moon is set up to do exactly the article is accusing China of potentially doing. What either side will do is purely speculative though and merely what they could potentially do. The Artemis Accords is a pact between the US and partner nations involved in the Artemis program. It says the nations themselves will not make claims on the Moon, but allows commercial companies involved to make claims instead. So the US could technically make claims on the Moon through SpaceX, barring China access to certain areas.

[Logwyn]

hope the government orders spacex dropped completely now that their ceo is a known russia china simp, let a pro america visionary get the limelight now. of course such a move would garner protest from the "america first" people. but let them whine and drop the scumbag

No need to totally scrap everything and make someone else start from scratch. Just change the leadership and keep going.

- - - Updated - - -

Hate to say it, but the US's new approach to the Moon is set up to do exactly the article is accusing China of potentially doing. What either side will do is purely speculative though and merely what they could potentially do. The Artemis Accords is a pact between the US and partner nations involved in the Artemis program. It says the nations themselves will not make claims on the Moon, but allows commercial companies involved to make claims instead. So the US could technically make claims on the Moon through SpaceX, barring China access to certain areas.

Sounds like the age of exploration with all of the "Cardinal Direction" Indies Companies. No wonder the US started the Space Force

[Pann]

If anyone is interested Falcon Heavy is due to launch in half an hour or so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfxyF1_Ylkk

[cubby]

No need to totally scrap everything and make someone else start from scratch. Just change the leadership and keep going.

Agreed. SpaceX is fantastic, and a resounding success in almost every category. If the founder has gone insane, no need to drop the company, just drop the insanity. I also have to think that the United States is already WAY all over this situation, and hopefully working with SpaceX's CEO to move both forward and away.

[plz delete account]

Hate to say it, but the US's new approach to the Moon is set up to do exactly the article is accusing China of potentially doing. What either side will do is purely speculative though and merely what they could potentially do. The Artemis Accords is a pact between the US and partner nations involved in the Artemis program. It says the nations themselves will not make claims on the Moon, but allows commercial companies involved to make claims instead. So the US could technically make claims on the Moon through SpaceX, barring China access to certain areas.

*what*

the Artemis Accords are literally just an extension of the Deep Space Treaty of 1969.

Also here, let's let china drop stages where we are actively trying to mine for Helium 3! that's a great idea and will not cause potential live fire in space in retaliation

- - - Updated - - -

Also, Glen Shotwell is fantastic.

[cubby]

Hate to say it, but the US's new approach to the Moon is set up to do exactly the article is accusing China of potentially doing. What either side will do is purely speculative though and merely what they could potentially do. The Artemis Accords is a pact between the US and partner nations involved in the Artemis program. It says the nations themselves will not make claims on the Moon, but allows commercial companies involved to make claims instead. So the US could technically make claims on the Moon through SpaceX, barring China access to certain areas.

The Artemis Accords are going to last as long as one country decides to ignore them because it's more advantageous to do so. Moon Bases are on the agenda for every space faring county, whether we like it or not. Every single space "company" is backed, heavily, by the governments in which they are based. We can hem and haw over it forever, but the United States, China, Japan, EU, and anyone else with the [future] capability are going to put a base on the Moon if they can.

I don't mean this in any confrontational or bad way, just a more pragmatic view of how treaties work, and how the governments that sign them choose to interpret them.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice milestone for Starship. I believe this was a "wet" rehearsal.

Next up is a destacking and a full fire test of all 33 engines.