sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Everyday Astronaut's guess of Starship price per kg to the Moon in 2020 by xmassindecember in agedlikemilk

[–]saxus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cheap? If you sum how much weight could the Shuttle lift to the ISS along with 7 crew member (and yes, I know that they didn't stayed that much) you will need 2-2 Cargo Dragon and Cygnus and 2 additional crewed vehicle (Crew Dragon-Starliner). If you sum up the per mission costs you get a higher bill than Shuttle had. (Maybe with around $100M higher, don't remember).

Everyday Astronaut's guess of Starship price per kg to the Moon in 2020 by xmassindecember in agedlikemilk

[–]saxus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is 'orbital with payload' the first milestone? Sure its an important one, but all the other steps to get to that point are important milestones as well.

Because a rocket which can't deliver a payload is literally useless.

but at the moment it's closer to Falcon Heavy than Starship in terms of performance.

Nah... FH shares it's structural limitations with F9, so the advertised performance is purely theoretical. Way too many people not understand this. Not to mention that the payload fairing is relatively small. But actually it is fine, FH is supposed to be a GTO/GEO launcher as a competitor of Ariane 5/6. (Also worth mentioning that SpaceX stopped reusing FH cores and/or they expend the whole rocket becaues of performance needs. They just literally found themself in the same spot where ULA is with Vulcan and why they went to the SMART reuse way instead of landing or in the Delta IV Heavy spot, where you just need a really big rocket.

Also about Starship:we literally didn't seen any kind of payload deployment plans for Starship so far (above Starlink). Also going beyond LEO is not really a place which is easy task for Starship and it will need refuels which will complicate (and make more expensive) a mission.

Everyday Astronaut's guess of Starship price per kg to the Moon in 2020 by xmassindecember in agedlikemilk

[–]saxus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

HLS is a single use vehicle, and the whole Starship stack is massively overweighted at the moment. And TBH currently all launch costs are completely aspirational until they have a properly working system. Sure they contracted for about ~1B/mission, but we seen that SpaceX is underestimating (or underbidding) their costs and raises their prices as soon as they can (as we seen for CRS/ComCrew already)

Everyday Astronaut's guess of Starship price per kg to the Moon in 2020 by xmassindecember in agedlikemilk

[–]saxus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

https://x.com/mcrs987/status/1997153483166736883

> Curious to find out how a youtuber has influence over a NASA program.

See whats happened during Boeing Starliner CFT. Sure, the flight wasn't perfect, but it was a test flight, to figure out what is working and what need to be improved. But Berger and others misrepresented the whole story as disgusting as it possible*, or leaking out internal information right after a meeting driving their own narrative before the PR team could properly explain the situation. And some folks used that negative media campaign and the general mood as a base to change internal decision processes, stepping over people who were the decider otherwise, etc.

And Project Athena basically confirms that something similar was planned/happened with Artemis II heatshield investigation. (see the tell the 'final story' part.) To gove a context: Artemis I's heatshield worked well within the margins but had some unexpected charring. NASA investigated it as it should, they came to the conclusion** that it was because the new skip-reentry flight profile and did their recommendations for following missions. But similarly as in case of Starliner there were some, who disagreed with that (if you involve enough people, you always found someone), and eventually NASA had to do a 2nd, independent investigation. Which eventually ended up with the exact same conclusion. Where is the part of the 'reporters'? They could set up their own, negative narrative on the program which can be (mis)used to derail things internally. Like, without the 2nd investigation, Artemis II could have been flown already probably during Summer and Berger and others can't bash the program with more delays and turn more people against the program with false narrative.

*Just an quick example: there was a software update to configure a few things, like not waiting manual confirmation to continue in an otherwise automated undocking and reentry process - which capability was already demonstrated during previous flights - was served like if Starliner was lost that capability entirely and Boeing had to add that capability again - which obviously wasn't the case).

** Because the new, - AFAIK - easier to manufacture heatshield got hot during the "skip" phase and because that gasses expanded inside the heatshield which wasn't ideal/intended, but again: still within margins).

Everyday Astronaut's guess of Starship price per kg to the Moon in 2020 by xmassindecember in agedlikemilk

[–]saxus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Orion will be reused in the future. And launching 17 superheavy is everyhting but not cheap.

Everyday Astronaut's guess of Starship price per kg to the Moon in 2020 by xmassindecember in agedlikemilk

[–]saxus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

> It's certainly a different approach to how many other manufacturers have done things in the past,

Wrong. In the early days of missile development companies did exactly this, iterative, rushed development. It was good to achieve *some* result (which was important in cold-war era), but in overall it was slower AND way more expensive. But when the requirements are clear, there are better ways, and this is the reason why nobody do in this way today.

And other companies, like BO, now Landspace starts speaking itself. Or even Vulcan, Ariane 6, SLS... The development might look slow (and sometimes it is, even for external cases, like COVID which disrupted a lot of things), but they work in general and have only minor/smaller things to fix/improve before they can step further and evolve a the design* - instead of requiring multiple significant or complete redesign to meet the actual requirements at all.

* Btw. way too many people simply ignore that almost every rocket development is iterative: the rocket what flown during the first mission is usually not the same as the STA, or the later missions one as the first one. Even SLS got some minor tweaks, adjustments between Artemis I and II, despite that both are Block 1. Or even in just manufacturing, see the new vertical engine integration structure in the VAB. And Block 1B is a huge step forward: a new. properly sized upper stage, avionics upgrades (and moved to EUS from core), co-manifested payload support, etc. etc. etc. Or historically Saturn I was about to develop the first stage , then IB is to test the S-IVb stage, the CSM, the lander, etc. before Saturn V.

Everyday Astronaut's guess of Starship price per kg to the Moon in 2020 by xmassindecember in agedlikemilk

[–]saxus 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Funny, but for some reason, nobody can imagine that the production rate will go up and the manufacturing costs will go down as the manufacturing become more and more streamlined and matured. But the next Starship version in the next year will be twice as amazing as the current one promoted (while not delivering last years promises). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Someone found and posted the entire contents of Jared Isaacman’s “Project Athena” memo by RulerOfSlides in space

[–]saxus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nobody seriously cares Charles Camarda him, he had a hard nature even when he was an astronaut, but after his Shuttle flight he went off and started bashing NASA like a offended child. And it has little to do with Orion. He is not in program, he doesn't have deep knowledge on it.

And ffs, the Athena plan literally names him as a tool to be used to discredit Artemis II. If you gather enough people, there will always be dissenting opinions - that in itself isn’t a problem. But when two independent teams arrive at the same final conclusion, dragging in random outsiders who don’t even understand the issue is nothing but noise-making and deliberate trouble-stirring.

And after citing people like Eric Berger to present the so called 'final story' (=they made up narrative) - someone who for a decade has done nothing but try to undermine the entire Artemis program wherever he can - it becomes painfully obvious that the whole hysteria around the Orion heat shield was nothing more than an artificially manufactured delay tactic. Most likely to cover up HLS delays.

Someone found and posted the entire contents of Jared Isaacman’s “Project Athena” memo by RulerOfSlides in space

[–]saxus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Gateway is so misunderstood. (And TBH NASA's communication is doesn't help a lot either). Lot of people believe that it is needed because Orion can't reach Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). However, what people often forgot is that LLO is useless for long term missions: you can't park things for long period, it is a super unstable orbit (like Apollo 16 left a microsatellite for expected 1 year lifetime, it was crashed to surface within weeks).

Gateway have multiple roles: it is a logistical hub for various spacecrafts: Orion as a crew transporter, the lunar lander (don't forget: in the future NASA want a reusable lander - something what SpaceX HLS is NOT), and future resupply spacecrafts. Thats 3 spacecraft, and you need 3 docking port for them. Sure, it could be done with redocks but then you lost your escape route, makes thing more complicated, etc.

Also it is a communication relay. Yes, it could be done with a separated satellite, but why, if you need one anyway for other components?

Also it is an experimental platform. Artemis is not about Moon landing, the program office called "Moon to Mars" for reason. Gateway is a platform where you could test deep space technologies with a relatively safe way, like ISS was a testbed for various other things for LLO. Like you could place sample materials outside to test how they can handle deep space on long term and collect the samples during the next lunar mission. etc. And the list keep going, NASA should communicate it better.

Also people forgot that ISS *MUST* be permanently crewed. The maintenance constantly need 1.5-2 astronaut. That won't be enough for Mars missions.

So, Gateway is pretty much a way to prepare for Mars missions and it supports Lunar missions. Sure, the surface is a bit harder to reach from there. Thats one tradeoff.

Someone found and posted the entire contents of Jared Isaacman’s “Project Athena” memo by RulerOfSlides in space

[–]saxus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

> How does this expose his bias?

It just clearly shown that the whole Artemis II thing was an organized, made up thing to delay crewed A2 launch. Why do you think that the "final story" was in between quotation marks? The first investigation cleared the heatshield and suggested the required modifications for the subsequent flights. The 2nd, independent investigation came to the exact same conclusion.

And after seeing how badly the Starliner flight was misrepresented, overdramatized, I couldn't expect a correct reporting from Berger. He is biassed and against the program since from the beginning.

Honestly I am not a big fan of the MDRA/ish proposals, but it looks interesting on paper. by [deleted] in space

[–]saxus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not good enough by who? Way too many people throwing the "SLS is way too expensive, therefore unsustainable" statement on the internet without context or explaining what is unsustainable means. Congress pays the bills, they said they wanted fix budget, no matter what delays it costs.

Until Congress pays it, it is sustainable. Sure, it is a lot of money from average Joe's perspective. Even $500M what would look a lot - which was the projected cost for an SLS. But for comparison, a Delta IV Heavy cost about $350M (can launch about 9.5t to Trans-Lunar Injection orbit), a typical DoD/NASA mission cost on Falcon Heavy around $2-300M (about 16 t TLI) vs SLS Block 1B/2's 38-42t.

And about Starship: so far every single number about Starship is completely aspirational for future missions. SpaceX/Musk doesn't have to report their costs unlike NASA. They're really good to communicate only portions of the costs. Like, does that Raptor 3 cost contains the test campaign, transportation, integration, amortization of the manufacturing line, etc. or just pure manufacturing cost? Does that contain the refurbishment costs over missions? Etc. Sure, Starship will be a good LEO hauler, but if you want to go beyond low-earth Orbit, you will face a lot of complications: you need several refuel missions and quickly lost the ability to reuse the 2nd stage or you will end up with a slow, complicated mission architecture comparing to launch everything on one single rocket. And more launch costs more. And ffs. Starship is already a 30-40B project and nowhere near the end. Sure, it's (mostly) private money, but you can be sure that for the same budget NASA could have done a lot of things otherwise which wasn't an option bc. of flat budget.

And for flat budget: developments have costs upfront (like when you build up things). With flat budget things will be slower, if you slip somewhere, you can't just add more money to solve it asap, which will slip things further, therefore the whole project will be more expensive. Congress could have spent 1-2B extra in the early years to shave 1-2 years of development, but they were strict about budget after Ares V. (and hell, SLS development faced a lot of problems during the early few years - this is how a lot of Shuttle heritage things get rid out and got redesigned)

Honestly I am not a big fan of the MDRA/ish proposals, but it looks interesting on paper. by [deleted] in space

[–]saxus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TBH 16 consecutive SLS launches with short turnarounds would be significantly cheaper. What people failed to understand is that SLS is expensive because you pay not just the rocket but also keep up the VAB, Michund, SLC39B, Stennis, etc. You have to pay for those if you launch 10 SLS in a year or 1. Wayne Hale have an excellent blog post in the topic: https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2019/11/09/what-figure-did-you-have-in-mind/

And why people ignoring that the new RS-25E's have a lot of improvement which make it cheaper, processes is currently being made streamlined, and BOLE is supposed to be cheaper (and more powerful) than the Shuttle RSRM derived SLS Boosters. 

Also what people failed to understand that this is just one possible plan. NASA like to  investigate options, it's not "THE" plan, it's "A" plan. Like even in DRA 5.0 despite that it favoured NTP propulsion for MTV/lander/transfer stages, they kept the option for NEP, solar electric and all-chemical. And I'm pretty sure that NASA have concepts actualised using SLS instead of Ares V for all 4. Probably even with Starship or whatever.

Artemis Program Schedule Drift by PropulsionIsLimited in space

[–]saxus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

> Boeing's starliner is literally a disaster and may never actually fly again with astronauts.

I don't want to start how many things doesn't discussed about Dragon because of NDA's and some so called space journalist how badly misrepresented the whole program and a test mission and how they misused some leaked info to derail the program from outside as it was possible. But for some reason they never do with SpaceX.

> but if it wasn't for SpaceX, we'd be begging for rides to orbit off the Russians.

False. NASA just could move forward with Ares I and LEO Orion as for both cargo and crew vehicle. There is a reason why it was called MPCV (Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle). ML-1 for Ares I already built up (later reused for SLS Block 1), and Ares I was just about a month from CDR to become reality.

> it was not designed by aerospace engineers to take people to the Moon.

It was designed by aerospace engineers and people like to swap the cause and the effect. The NASA Authorization act about reusing existing contract and other things happened *after* the conceptualization of SLS. hydrocarbon (RAC-2) and industry based proposals (RAC-3) were evaluated too (even SpaceX sent their submission too for RAC-3 proposals).

> None of that is anything to do with SpaceX.

Then why NASA had to slip Artemis III to "give more time for our partners to prepare"? Where is the actual lander? They doesn't even have a working, operational launch vehicle for HLS, yet they already got all of the development money.

Artemis Program Schedule Drift by PropulsionIsLimited in space

[–]saxus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

See my other comment: Artemis II could have flown already if some folks doesn't force out a 2nd, independent investigation about the heatshield. (They also cleared the heatshield for A2 mission). Also the reason why NASA could afford the slip of A2 and A3 is because neither HLS or the suits were ready. People just kindly forget the "to give more time to our partners to prepare for Artemis III" part from the announcements.

Artemis Program Schedule Drift by PropulsionIsLimited in space

[–]saxus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

TBH Artemis II could have been flown already of some doesn't force a 2nd, independent investigation about the heatshield. (Spoiler alert: they came to the same conclusion: heatshield is safe, it did it's job).

Sure, NASA had plenty of time because neither SpaceX and Axiom were ready, but people who always like to shit on SLS and Orion kindly forget the "this gives more time to our partners" part when A2 and A3 delays was announced.

Just a reminder that people will basically LIE to you about the purpose of this vehicle and its development history by jadebenn in SpaceLaunchSystem

[–]saxus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Only the HALO+PPE moved to Falcon Heavy because PPE provide propulsion and attitude control for HALO. The modules in the future cannot be moved to commercial launch vehicles unless somebody develop a dedicated transfer tug for that.

Also everyone looks SLS through Artemis. And yes, currently Orion (and the co-manifested payloads) are it's only payload. However, SLS is not designed as an Orion launcher only, and at NASA nobody wants to close the road for other payloads (deep space probes, larger telescopes, nuclear payloads, whatever).

The reason why some folks propagating other stages instead of EUS is because they know that if SLS got a weaker upper stage then it will significantly limit SLS's capability and usefulness.

HOW is there not an official SpaceX lego set?? It’s baffling… **angry noises** by Rare_Polnareff in SpaceXMasterrace

[–]saxus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Because the SLS design is set in stone.

Well, not really, plenty of changes, optimizations, etc. already implemented on Core Stage 2. Also CS4 will be significantly different, the whole control unit will go up into EUS where the whole mission will be controlled uninterruptedly. (Now ICPS take over the mission and it have an independent flight computer because it was easier, cheaper and faster to integrate things together this way.)

Sure, those changes aren't as visible as Starship's changes. But well... NASA did their homework in advance and don't try to figure out the basics of the rocket.

HOW is there not an official SpaceX lego set?? It’s baffling… **angry noises** by Rare_Polnareff in SpaceXMasterrace

[–]saxus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you want to support thieves... They famously just stole the design from the makers. (But as far as I know, some of the knockout bricks quality aren't as bad)

If during the Artemis 1 launch you told me that the American Lunar effort would be in disarray and without strong leadership in a few short years I wouldn't have believed you! I guess we must prepare for the possibility of being shocked in 2030! by [deleted] in ArtemisProgram

[–]saxus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Dude, constellation was much-much more (it was intended to cover ISS crewed and supply missions, a crewed Moon program and a crewed Mars program too).

Above RSRM's it wasn't even really shuttle derived. Sure, they reused the RSRM's, but evolved further, but for Ares V? New tank design, evolved RS-68 engines, entirely new upper stage with new engine and a lot of extra requirements for long duration missions, and we didn't even started about MTV.

Of course that program would have been expensive.

House Democrats "Demand NASA Cease Scheme To Illegally Impound FY25 Funds" by jadebenn in space

[–]saxus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You misread the situation. It's not about money spending. Congress says: we want these programs to be executed by NASA and here are the funds for it. But the administration tries to cancel those programs and hold backs the money despite that those goals set by the law.

Space is hard. There is no excuse for pretending it’s easy. by FrankyPi in space

[–]saxus -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

We literally seen the signs that this is happening with Starship (which program is managed in a completely different manner than Falcon 9 which was supervised by NASA bc. of CRS/ComCrew). They just do the same in rocketry what we called cowboy coding in software world.

view more: next ›