NASA Human Landing System

[kerbiloid]

When I say that a group of lobbyists are pushing the SpaceX against the lobbyists of ULA, and that's the only reason of SpaceX success, they say, I'm wrong.

Spoiler

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

On 8/6/2021 at 12:48 AM, mikegarrison said:

Well, there was a time about 20 years ago when it was really clear the people running Boeing really wanted to be running something like Amazon, and felt tied down by the fact that they were running an aerospace manufacturing company rather than an internet company. Maybe Bezos is encountering problems going in the other direction?

It's pretty clear that something major went wrong with the BE-4 engine. That was supposed to be shipped by now. But these things happen.

There do seem to be a lot of fingers pointed at Bob Smith, but I have no personal insight into how valid (or invalid) that criticism is.

Might well be something like this, not that Amazon don't do lots of stuff from cloud to distribution, but their attempt to do computer games has not worked out very well either. 

[Rakaydos]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

When I say that a group of lobbyists are pushing the SpaceX against the lobbyists of ULA, and that's the only reason of SpaceX success, they say, I'm wrong.

  Hide contents

 

I mean, clearly it cant be the ONLY reason, because SpaceX's products are better AND cheaper AND more responsive to demand.

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, Rakaydos said:

SpaceX's products are better AND cheaper AND more responsive to demand

To the moment, both Starship and SLS are same good.

Together with Sea Dragon and Convair Nexus.

[Beccab]

4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

To the moment, both Starship and SLS are same good.

Together with Sea Dragon and Convair Nexus.

And falcon heavy is a paper rocket while SLS is real, you've seen it here at michoud

Same feel

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, Beccab said:

And falcon heavy is a paper rocket

Atlas, Delta, andTitan also aren't.

[magnemoe]

18 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

To the moment, both Starship and SLS are same good.

Together with Sea Dragon and Convair Nexus.

With the exception that both SS and SLS are rockets at the end stage of construction , sea dragon and nexus are paper projects. 

[Rakaydos]

57 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

To the moment, both Starship and SLS are same good.

Together with Sea Dragon and Convair Nexus.

Starship isnt a product yet. Neither is SLS. It's Falcon 9 block 5 and Falcon heavy against the oldspace stable, and SpaceX is winning handilly.

Starship on the horizon is a future threat that, if it works, seals SpaceX's dominance for 2 decades at least.

[kerbiloid]

40 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

With the exception that both SS and SLS are rockets at the end stage of construction , sea dragon and nexus are paper projects. 

Still 0 launches.

N-1 was also a product. 4 launches. Much more a product than Starship and SLS, lol.

[MKI]

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

To the moment, both Starship and SLS are same good.

Together with Sea Dragon and Convair Nexus.

The key to SpaceX successes now and in the future is the focus not on the design, but the process.

Simply put, any fault you or anyone finds in a given system will be quickly mitigated, and improved. This is how leading companies stay ahead of the game. The prime examples here are Toyota, and leading tech companies. Its also the exact design philosophy Elon is taking to SpaceX, and the same one he applies to all of his companies. 

 

Sure you can find a fault with Starship, but the question is how quickly/easily is it fixed/changed? That process of iteration is the product.  Or to put it in more crude terms, the factory is the product. The problem is hard, incredible hard, but if the process can adapt a solution quickly, and easily no problem is "too hard". This also means if a competitor shows up, you can iterate and out maneuver around said competitor. There's a reason why there are only a handful of tech companies in control of basically of everything, to the point they are doing things that are almost useless. (see google-graveyard)

 

You can compare this design process with all other competitors and your left with SpaceX, and small-time rocket companies taking similar approaches at smaller scales. Governments can't work like this, traditional rocket companies don't work like this either. I don't see this situation changing anytime soon as its basically impossible to change a companies philosophy to design, and governments can't work like this.

Its obviously more risky to work like this, where each failed iteration sets you back. Except at this point SpaceX has made failure cheap. Incredibly cheap. Failed Starship launches are to expected, as are multiple iterations in quick succession. SpaceX also has solid investment and financial backing to support any iteration setbacks. However, its worth noting there is 1 area where SpaceX can't iterate quickly, its the launch pad. If the launch pad gets destroyed, it will take significantly more time to fix than any number of failed rocket tests. However, if such a failure would occur it would be a large setback, but not a permanent one. 

 

I personally don't care much about "right now". I like to focus on what's next, as that's much more interesting. Right now it looks like SpaceX's Starship will dominate for decades, simply because there is no competition anywhere close to it. Even if it fails to get anywhere near its original design capabilities (like being able to get to Mars), its fully reusable capabilities look completely sane. You thus end up with a fully reusable, heavy payload lifter, who's nearest competitor is a freaken Falcon Heavy. 

Even if that ultimately fails... Starlink is more or less operational to give the global broadband a competitor, and meanwhile Falcon 9 is still an industry leader by a giant margin. Together this means more Starship failures and iterations can be supported, which ultimately means the process will build what is required in time. 

 

If it was possible to publicly invest in SpaceX, I'd consider it an excellent investment you could make right now. Its hands down one of the most obvious monopolies in the process of gaining increased capabilities. The only real question is if market demand will sustain it for its future ambitions, and if bad financial decisions tank its future far down the line. But at this current time, the best has yet to be seen. 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by MKI

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, MKI said:

If it was possible to publicly invest in SpaceX, I'd consider it an excellent investment you could make right now. Its

Exactly. Before they started testing the reentry of 2nd stage and the N1 of the 1st stage.

If actions fall, the money will be lost.

[Rakaydos]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

Exactly. Before they started testing the reentry of 2nd stage and the N1 of the 1st stage.

If actions fall, the money will be lost.

This is why spaceX isnt publicly traded. Only mars believers are allowed to give them money. This gives them the flexibility to be public about failures on the road to mars without their funding suffering.

So, it doesnt matter if one or two or nine boosters and/or ships "fail", they are literally mass producing improved versions, and didnt want to find a place to park the obsolete ones anyway.

[tater]

This is such a goofy part of the discussion to have yet again.

OMG, they've been bending metal on SS for 2.5 years now, and it has not flown to orbit yet! It's fake! They change stuff, instead of sticking with the first design which means... it's fake! Stick whatever other dumb argument in there you like.

The idea that the booster will not function as a booster is comical. That's a solved problem. Recovering it with legs on it? A solved problem.

Starship itself? Flying an upper stage is a solved problem, unconcerning. EDL from orbit? Complex, and as they say, it will take a while with iteration as needed. Once they accomplish that, what about rapid reuse? Also complex, and that likely awaits more iteration after they manage to recover any in the first place.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

23 minutes ago, tater said:

This is such a goofy part of the discussion to have yet again

That's why they are fun! 

(This is a quibble circle, after all) 

Still - there are some good points...  SS has flown much like New Shepard - it's gone up suborbital and come down to land under its own power. 

That's really about it.  None of the rest of the promise has yet been demonstrated. 

We can reasonably assume (given SX's performance with orbital rockets) that they know what they are doing with SH.  For one, I'm convinced that they can (and have) built a rocket that can throw a payload into orbit with SH.  Has it proven that yet?  No.

. .. But it looks like a rocket that can do it. Can it land the way they plan?  Well... They're doing well with Falcon - so perhaps they can scale it up and make SH work.  Will they on the first try? 

SX does not seem to care. 

They're OK with failing if rapid iteration works and they learn how and then do.  Not something we've really seen since the 60s.  Makes them exciting to watch. 

So - as to SS... As a payload, if you assume SH will be successful in throwing tonnage into an orbital trajectory - then it should be considered an orbital craft... Repeat the steps above (can they, will they do they care if they are seen to fail, etc) 

So... While we await their readiness - there is really nothing for folks here to do but crib and crab and hope and wait 

 

[tater]

We'll literally know in a few months, then if there is a failure, in another few months, and so forth.

It changes nothing about "normal" space exploration at all, which continues apace with conventional LVs (with recovered boosters now being conventional).

[MKI]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If actions fall, the money will be lost.

Then I guess Google should be bankrupt because here's all the products they iterated into death:

https://killedbygoogle.com/

Also losing money now means nothing if you can gain more of it back later. That's why its called an investment rather than gambling (even if they can both feel the same haha). Sure if SpaceX was a publicly traded company, and SN20 exploded on re-entry the stocks would dip. But SpaceX wont go out of business because any smart investor would invest into it ASAP, so the stocks would keep growing right after such a failure. Plus SpaceX is a very diverse company still growing into a stable and growing market. 

 

Hell I wasn't sure what the future held for Tesla, and the fact Elon signed on to only get paid if he made the company the #1 car manufacture in the world. Multiple sources said Tesla would run out of cash and be done and over, Elon was sleeping under desks and basically working himself to death. And yet here we are where Tesla is no longer on the death brink, is still an industry leader, expanding into multiple markets and Elon did eventually get paid. I personally still cant believe it, but it already happened.

I'm not an Elon fan boy, I'm a realistic skeptic. SpaceX and Starship is the real freaken deal, and yes its freaken insane, but so is the fact we went to the Moon 50+ years. Which we did on the backs of pure trial and error within 10 years. So yes, Starship can work and will eventually work, we already did this when we went to the moon. (Unless of course you ask one of those conspiracy theorist haha)

 

3 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

This is why spaceX isnt publicly traded. Only mars believers are allowed to give them money. This gives them the flexibility to be public about failures on the road to mars without their funding suffering.

So, it doesnt matter if one or two or nine boosters and/or ships "fail", they are literally mass producing improved versions, and didnt want to find a place to park the obsolete ones anyway.

Even if SpaceX doesn't get to Mars, they are still industry leaders and will be for some time. Idk what the next semi-reusable launch vehicle even looks like. So at a bare minimum its a near monopoly. Its also possible Starlink is another near global infrastructure monopoly. 1 company with control of 2 entire markets is incredible by itself, never mind the mission statement of trying to get humanity to be multi species. XD

[southernplain]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If actions fall, the money will be lost.

I get the sense Elon doesn't care about the cash burn and SpaceX selects its own investors.

In fact, it is rather refreshing that SpaceX is burning capital building SS/SH at a breakneck pace. I only wish BO would burn some more money to go faster and mount a credible competition. Then their HLS protests would carry more water than just sour grapes at losing a contract.

[kerbiloid]

I will better believe in a shark's bounty than in a self-made billionaire's naive romantism.

When a money attractor feeds the stove with money, this usually just means that it isn't his money.

And when the real money owner doesn't stop him from doing that, that usually means the same.

(All I read about Tesla production just ensures me.)

[Rakaydos]

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

I will better believe in a shark's bounty than in a self-made billionaire's naive romantism.

When a money attractor feeds the stove with money, this usually just means that it isn't his money.

And when the real money owner doesn't stop him from doing that, that usually means the same.

(All I read about Tesla production just ensures me.)

While generally a good habit, the specifics here is off. Elon made millions selling his share of paypal, then later he gambled with his paycheck at TESLA, that if he could short squeeze the tslaQ crowd, he'd become one of the richest people in the world, but if he didnt, he'd get nothing. And he did. Seriously, check out that compensation package, people thought he was crazy.

This is speedrun strats, not general "money attractor" behavure. Luck had everything to do with it, money grubbing capitalist behavure had nothing to do with it.

[Codraroll]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

I will better believe in a shark's bounty than in a self-made billionaire's naive romantism.

When a money attractor feeds the stove with money, this usually just means that it isn't his money.

And when the real money owner doesn't stop him from doing that, that usually means the same.

(All I read about Tesla production just ensures me.)

Let's cut to what I suspect is the core of the issue here:

Just because Russia has consistently failed to create a man-rated rocket better than the one they first designed in the 1950s, doesn't mean it's impossible for everyone.

[SOXBLOX]

3 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Let's cut to what I suspect is the core of the issue here:

Just because Russia has consistently failed to create a man-rated rocket better than the one they first designed in the 1950s, doesn't mean it's impossible for everyone.

Doh! LOL

If Russia keeps failing, we'll see Soyuz docking with the USS Enterprise a century or two from now. 

[Beccab]

April 2025 new NET for the suits

[kerbiloid]

17 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

If Russia keeps failing, we'll see Soyuz docking with the USS Enterprise a century or two from now. 

And it will just illustrate the importance of proper minimalism.

Of course, if the word "Enterprise" will stay legal in the United Socialist States (USS is for that, yes?). 

3 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Just because Russia has consistently failed to create a man-rated rocket better than the one they first designed in the 1950s

What could Russia do, if somebody has to rent a 1950s ship for flying for 10 years due to the lack of his own.

[Rakaydos]

11 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

And it will just illustrate the importance of proper minimalism.

Of course, if the word "Enterprise" will stay legal in the United Socialist States (USS is for that, yes?). 

What could Russia do, if somebody has to rent a 1950s ship for flying for 10 years due to the lack of his own.

United States' Ship, actually.

And they,ve found out what happens when they DONT rent one to a dot com millionare with dreams of mars- they lose the entire  commercial launch market in 15 years.

[kerbiloid]

4 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

United States' Ship, actually.

That's now.
USS Enterprise is from mid-XXII.

7 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

they lose the entire  commercial launch market in 15 years.

No problem, they will put efforts for special space applications of their own, paying for that from another pipeworks.