Finally, a new heavy lift vehicle ! Oh, it's probably going to explode on the first attempt. Maybe even on the first few attempts. But after that...
Makes one wonder why NASA has been so monumentally unsuccessful at developing new rockets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyXpoGbwGL0&feature=share
Because of policy funding? It is lucrative business, so a lot of lobbyist are after this situation...
ReplyDeletePossibly. But wouldn't it be in everyone's interests to develop a cheaper launcher ? Who benefits from keeping it expensive ?
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor this people who are paid for that. It is probably similar to pharmacy business where high costs of entry are very valuable for present gamers..
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor
ReplyDeleteblink ... blink ...
Ummm, who benefits from keeping it expensive? I dunno, maybe the member of the US Senate who have the SLS components made in their districts? (see: Pork Barrel Politics )
There is a reason they sarcastically call the SLS the "Senate Launch System". They are quite unhappy that Elon Musk is delivering on his promise for low-cost reliable boost services.
This is why I was happy to see the coverage on how all the journalists and photographers had to have their equipment bags checked by police sniffing dogs. There are too many powerful people who would not be upset if the Falcon Heavy blew up on the pad. Not upset at all.
Winchell Chung I'm a naive foreigner, and don't understand how these things work (no sarcasm intended). What is is that makes it more profitable to the senators (or whoever) to have a few expensive rockets rather than lots of cheap ones ?
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor If I am the senator from Alabama, I might have two versions of a bill in front of me. One version spends $500m working on the SLS, with $75 million of that (phase 1) guaranteed to be spent at a manufacturing in Huntsville. The other version spends $100m to qualify Falcon Heavy for manned flight -- which would remove one of the main reasons for the SLS system as that need could be handled by FH. Of the $100m, about $10m probably going to subcontractors in Alabama.
ReplyDeleteWhich one brings jobs to or keeps jobs for your constituents?
That's why the manufacturing location of the BFR is such an interesting question...
Rhys Taylor
ReplyDeleteI fear you have no idea of the depth of political corruption here in the States.
The senators do not give a rat's ass about having lots of cheap rockets. Their main concerns are [1] getting re-elected in six years and [2] getting as many contributions to their re-election campaigns as possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel
I was asking more of a hypothetical rather than specifically in relation to SLS : why has NASA never developed a cheap, reusable rocket when SpaceX have done so in a few years ? Naively (again), it seems to me that if you have a rocket manufacturing plant churning out lots of cheap rockets, that is as good for the state and corrupt senator as if it produced one big expensive rocket. Am I being dense ?
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor
ReplyDeleteNo, you were not being dense, I was.
That question is above my pay grade, but I will note that NASA keeps getting blind-sided every four to eight years which sometimes makes them have to throw away all their development and start yet again from scratch.
When the Space Shuttle was retired, it was to be replaced by the Ares I in 2016. Sadly Ares I was cancelled along with the rest of Constellation in 2010.
Also, in many cases NASA has its hands tied, since they do not have control on how their money is spent. Or given enough money. On July 24, 2014, Government Accountability Office audit predicted that SLS will not launch by the end of 2017 as originally planned since NASA is not receiving sufficient funding.
Rhys Taylor, half the cost, and twice the payload. That's a disruption. Seems he has a knack for that.
ReplyDeleteDavid Andrews
ReplyDeleteBut more to the point: it isn't two years past the deadline, and billions of dollars in cost over-runs.
Well, who said Elon Musk is not part of this corruption system? For me it's clear that his job is mainly beying celebrity. An he uses this for starting over and over new businesses which probably means he has access to cheap founding, because of that. In my eyes he is not credible or even professional one. What is he doing is performance, mimicking Ayn Rand circus, but behind it are just credit, banks and someone else founds.
ReplyDeleteKazimierz Kurz Well, a few months ago I was becoming a lot more skeptical about Musk. For all the innovation, Tesla don't seem to be profitable; the Boring Company was just daft and still look ridiculous (cough cough FLAMETHROWER ! cough cough HANK SCORPIO ! cough cough); Hyperloop sounded pretty silly; SpaceX were claiming re-usability but not actually re-using any of their recovered rockets. And their plans and visions still keep changing very rapidly. There was a rather large whiff of smoke and mirrors about the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteBut, it's hard to argue with results. Space X are reusing rockets; costs are coming down - dramatically, in the case of the Falcon Heavy. It remains to be seen whether we'll really get to the extreme savings promised in some press releases (and I'm still skeptical about that, and I'm not really sold on Hyperloop either), but dang it, the thing works. In the end, even if he is something of a performance artist (an unconventional one - most of his speeches have some seriously awkward moments and I can understand why people might personally dislike him), Space X wouldn't exist without him. There seems to be compelling evidence that he still does the technical work as well as the entrepreneurial stuff (have a Google; I can't find anything suggesting he doesn't). I'm not seeing anything to suggest he's part of the corruption; this seems to me to be a case of capitalism actually working to drive down costs and increase innovation, as it's supposed to do but so often fails to accomplish.
Kazimierz Kurz There's a crucial difference. If Elon Musk fails to deliver his investors and creditors lose money. If the SLS contractors fail to deliver, it's taxpayer's money that has been spent.
ReplyDeleteAlan Peery i understand it. But this add desperation, not cleverness to its repertoire. I don't like him, probably in irrational way.
ReplyDeleteThe biography of him was a good read. Considering what he has accomplished, I speculate the guy is somewhere on the autism spectrum.
ReplyDeleteamazon.ca - Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future: Ashlee Vance: 9780062301239: Books - Amazon.ca
David Andrews biography of living multimillionaire. What part of it may be fake?
ReplyDeleteKazimierz Kurz Perhaps you should read it with an open mind, noting down the things you suspect to be false. Then check some of those...
ReplyDeleteAlan Peery no thanks. I have much more interesting readings.
ReplyDeleteIt is not interesting person for me. He has only money and pressure to get celebrity.
ReplyDeleteKazimierz Kurz and what part of it may be real? since you refuse to even look for new information you don't know.
"He has only money and pressure to get celebrity."
On the contrary, he is revolutionizing the auto industry and aerospace.
You are entitled to your opinion but that's all it is, an uninformed opinion.
"no thanks. I have much more interesting readings."
Which begs the question, what are you doing here? Trying to change my mind, or just feel the need to argue?
In either case my friend, you are wasting your time.