/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11454091
SpaceX will be nationalized by Bernie Sanders in 2022

>cryogenic cucks

>>11454105
Non-cryogenic fuels are inferior in terms of specific impulse

>>11454104
>bernie
>president
sorry m8 it's going to be either biden or trump

>>11454109
As if that will stop china to go million miles away

>>11454109
>laughs in N2O4/Pentaborane propellant

>>11454105
>those nitrous clouds
RIP the farmers downwind

>>11454132
>tfw that welding is no better then what spics do on site at spacex

>>11454139
>RIP the farmers downwind
Who cares about downwind when he's likely to have a spent booster land on his farmhouse.

>>11454140
I mean you’d expect welding techniques to improve since the 1960s...

>>11454142
its not like these people dont get compensated for it.
As long as nobody is hurt all is good hell they probably give them better housing than they had.

Woud it be possible to make a nosecode, or even the body using metal spinning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_spinning

>>11454224
the only technical limitation there is that it's 9m across and nobody has a metal spinning setup that big

>>11454224
Depends on the size. 9 inches? Doable. 9 meters? Nah.

>>11454224
yeah, but that's for later when the design is 100% finished and they can afford to invest in big, specialized machinery for single parts. For now the proof of concept should be done by hand to enable quick iteration of design.

>>11454104
I don't think spacex or any other cutting edge innovative company would be possible with Bernie Sanders insane tax rates.

>>11454253
all that shit will ever do is make the market for tax lawyers who help giant corporations not pay taxes bigger. Government regulation of that scale just makes new markets for anyone who can help companies subvert it—this is a well known phenomenon. Worst case scenario they start moving operations to other countries and keeping money offshore, which is what most big companies already do. They would have to get VERY antagonistic to America's biggest companies to be able to actually extract a lot more in taxes out of them.

>>11454104
No it wont. Nationalizing in the US has always been about trying to help it's economy (at least with modern examples). However, the US economy is fine right now. Also, SpaceX is a world leader in LEO payload delivery because it's not heavily tied to the government. Nationalizing it would pretty much kill the company along with the advantage it gives to the US.

>>11454224
The problem with spinning is it work hardens the metal and most light weight alloys work harden very quickly.

>>11454270
You underestimate how much the average person hates how the government spends on space and dislike the talks about "American superiority." They just want to grind their axe against the tech elite and if the space industry is sacrificed in the process (along with Trump's Space Force) that would be a positive to them.

>>11454273
But they are using cold rolled stainless, so would that make a difference? They could start with a normal stainless place and work harden it while shaping it.

>>11454233
How big would the rig need to be?

>>11454276
>You underestimate how much the average person hates how the government spends on space
I'm fully aware of it. However, SpaceX is a private company. The money they spend on space is their own. Nationalizing SpaceX would just make the government have to spend more on space in order to maintain the company.

>>11454270
>However, the US economy is fine right now.
might want to check todays news... it's all gone a bit 2008.

>>11454276
>the average person.
You’re referring to a vocal minority NASA petitions suggest has never been above 30%.
Its not 1973 anymore the positive results of the Space Program are clear and undeniable now.

You’re right however Democrat ‘revenge’ against Trump is a frightening prospect.

>>11454288
With cold rolled it's hot rolled to very near final spec before being cold rolled, very different to changing it's shape completely.
You could spin it then anneal it and temper it again but with how much you would need to spend on all that gear it's probably way easier to weld it.

daily reminder that the biggest threat facing spacex is not nationalisation or being regulated out of beo or starship failing but pic related.

>>11454299
>the positive results of the Space Program are clear and undeniable now
of course, how could I forget that we know how to bake cookies in space now

>>11454304
You really think Musk is the kind of guy to have his lifes goal derailed by a woman? I think not.

>>11454304
>Grimes, the artist formerly known as Claire Boucher — she now prefers c, the symbol for the speed of light — has given a wide-ranging interview to Rolling Stone
>Grimes, 31, gets around to discussing her relationship and pregnancy with controversial Tesla founder, Elon Musk. Notably, the interview finds Grimes confirming for the first time that Musk is the father of her child.
wtf
although doesn't Musk already have children?

>>11454314
>doesn't Musk already have children
Artificially inseminated afaik.

>>11454305
You're forgetting...
>GPS
>communication satellites
>spy satellites
>studies of the universe in ways that can't be duplicated in a lab
>weather monitoring
>crop monitoring
>maritime monitoring
>Earth studying
>mapping
>technology spin offs

And that's just stuff that's been done today, but there's future prospects like...
>space resource utilization
>deep space research
>micro-g manufacturing
>colonization

Space flight absolutely does have it's benefits. You're being short sighted by looking at the lame aspects rather than the actual helpful aspects.

>>11454305
>we know how to bake cookies in space now
this was cringe almost as cringe as my tax money going to exo planet spotting and sls

>>11454302
So if he want to build enough starships this would become a viable option. They could spin the entire hull and then just slide bulkheads from the bottom and weld them in place.

>>11454327
no, not really

>>11454314
As long as music bloggers seethe that their woke indie gem has been corrupted by capitalism, I'm cool with them hooked up.
t. /mu/tant

>>11454330
why not?

>>11454324
I post in this thread, so I agree with you, anon, but the moment John Oliver memes on the ISS, suddenly an entire generation of zoomers will hate space travel and clueless democrats will try to play into it because they're currently completely failing to understand the youngest voting generation. I am pessimistic about an administration change, although privatizing SpaceX is obviously a meme.

>>11454335
>but the moment John Oliver memes on the ISS, suddenly an entire generation of zoomers will hate space travel
And why would he do that?

>>11454299
>You’re right however Democrat ‘revenge’ against Trump is a frightening prospect.
If that happens, then NASA is dead to me.

>>11454288
Why would they bother making a 9m diameter nosecone with a fucking lathe when they're making the whole shite out of 4mm cold rolled sheet metal or whatever it is they're currently at?
It's like them dropping what they're doing then deciding to make one specific part by melting down pig iron in a clay mold. It makes no sense to just throw in another process for no reason.

Because they'd need to fabricate a special lathe just to make that specific part due to sheer size and it would require polishing up by hand afterwards because milling does not make perfect parts whether it's done by hand or CNC.

>>11454360
explosive forming could be useful for the nose cone

>>11454363
Extruding.

>>11454352
It's not NASA's decision, it isn't under their control, if the Executive branch wants to fuck them, they're fucked, especially if the sitting administration can get Congress on board.
>>11454349
That gratingly unfunny limey bootlicker will advocate against whatever his handlers tell him to advocate against.

>>11454352
>>11454366
Remember Constellation, what Artemis used to be called before it got dragged behind the building and promptly shot.

>>11454370
>Remember Constellation, what Artemis used to be called before it got dragged behind the building and promptly shot.

They have literally nothing in common

>>11454372
Do they not? Got an image like this for Artemis to compare?

>>11454372
Yeah, apart from the whole going back to the moon to set up bases and do in-situ resource extraction in preparation for eventual Mars missions bit and using the Orange Rocket Totally Not Made Of Left Over Shuttle Parts, they're completely not the same mission with different names.

This is how it's always done, they change shit around a little bit, then bring it back when the winds have changed, then some money gets spent and hopefully it doesn't get shut down this time around.

>>11454372
they both use Orion, both use shuttle derived heavy launch systems, both cost a bajillion dollars

>>11454378
Incidentally, the same fucking thing would have happened to the Apollo program if it weren't for the cold war and the fact that there was an actual space race going on. Nixon would have shut that whole shit down if the Soviet wasn't actually going for the moon just to spite Kennedy's legacy.

>>11454314
>controversial Tesla founder, Elon Musk
is he really controversial? I know he called that guy a pedo, but let's be real here, he was absolutely a sex tourist at best.

>>11454314
Yeah, he has five living sons and one deceased one from a prior wife. Pretty cool.

>>11454304
>A new child would somehow bother Musk when he already has fucking five

Sounds like you’re jealous

>>11454386
smoked drugs in front of a live audience was a big thing that upset people.

>>11454400
>One small hit from a blunt in a state where it's completely legal
>Normies lose their fucking shit

>>11454399
>i'm leaving with child and i want half of everything, and my lawyers agree

>>11454400
>Thinking people care about smoking weed anymore

You a boomer or something?

>>11454366
>It's not NASA's decision, it isn't under their control, if the Executive branch wants to fuck them, they're fucked, especially if the sitting administration can get Congress on board.
I know, but that's why they'll be dead to me. If a project like Artemis could get canceled on a whim like that, then why should I want to support NASA? Why should I root for an agency that has no control of it's vision? I shouldn't, and I won't. Artemis, despite it's flaws, is NASA's first big mission in decades. A mission with future positive implications for space flight. If that gets swept away because a child in the White House didn't like his predecessor, then it's a sign that NASA should not be trusted with the future of space flight. It doesn't matter if they can't control it. It's still an issue.

>>11454402
not sure if was random normies but the mainstream media went after him for like 3 weeks.

>>11454403
They’re not married. Please try to talk about things you understand only.

>>11454409
I consider investors and people who read main stream media normies and they all lost their shit over that tiny fucking toke. You'd think the dude was ripping buckets and injecting heroin in his dick.

>>11454413
No they didn’t. Everyone smokes weed now. No one cares about boomer news but boomers.

>>11454418
>Everyone smokes weed now
no they don't, only inner city thugs and basement dwelling stoners do.

>>11454423
This wasn't a genuine post.

>>11454372
>Both reuse or modify existing shuttle hardware including a new permutation of the Shit Rocket Boosters, 8.4m SSET, and a Saturn V derived EDS second stage.
>Both are intended for the medium to heavy lift role with a large payload fairing to allow for a variety of cargo.
>Both would be used for Moon shots with the intent to establish technologies leading to an eventual Mars shot.
>Both use up the stockpile of RS-25 and then move on to the RS-68b
>Both are wasteful government pork projects utilizing dated technologies and design mentalities which are suboptimal for modern space programs.

The major difference I noticed was that Atlas V would use another smaller rocket to launch it's crewed capsules, and that unlike SLS the Shit Rocket Boosters will be recovered, although considering how trash they are anyways I'd say that's only a marginal upside. Both have actual availability dates in the 2020's and probably won't really be doing anything interesting till the mid 2020's to late 2020's.

>>11454423
>no they don't

Over 55 million adults in the US smoke weed, and the majority of them are millennials. Weed is mainstream and boomers like you are gonna be dead soon.

>>11454428
Why do you hate the Space Shuttle’s boosters?

>>11454400
Sounds pretty fucking BASED to me.
>>11454409
Whatever the sub 80 IQ losers in the MSM say, I'd advise you assume the opposite to be true, or simply ignore their opinions period. If they aren't actively lying about something, or lying by omitting, then they're getting things wrong because they're so sloppy they can't even do a simple google search for easily accessible public domain information. Fingers crossed their influence will continue to diminish as it has been for the past few years until they become completely irrelevant.

>>11454437
Probably because of Challenger. That and the F-1 got cucked because of them.

>>11454433
only stoner reject millenials smoke weed

>>11454409
MSM has incentive to rip on musk because boomers hate him and boomers are their key audience. Musk-hate = viewers.

>>11454433
>Smonk weed all day and give yourself popcorn lung from vaping.
>Die of Corona-Chan
Day of the zoom soon.
>>11454437
They're everything stupid about the mentality of government space programs, one company makes them at a sluggish rate for exorbitant expense, they allow for lazy design so that instead of building a superior first stage you just build an anemic one and strap a couple of the forbidden firework to it. They fucked over the team designing the F1-b in favor of them, and one of them killed a shuttle. They're expendable, representing a waste of both monetary and physical resources.

>>11454443
>only stoner reject millenials smoke weed

Only virgin reject millennials and boomers don’t smoke weed. Sounds like you have no friends and never get invited to parties

>>11454449
Man just quit replying to him.

>>11454446
>They're expendable

No, they recovered the Space Shuttle’s boosters and reused them.

>>11454453
True, but IIRC the refurbishment cost was almost as high as making new ones. Also, the SLS won't be recovering it's boosters. So that small benefit is gone.

>>11454449
>you have no friends and never get invited to parties
who would want to go to a gay ass party with a bunch of loser stoners larping has hippie bums lmao

>>11454224
>spinning a 9 meter final diameter piece
>disc blank would be significantly bigger
fear.png

>>11454453
Recovering the empty shell and having to pay for it to be repaired after slamming into the ocean and refilled with solid propellant was probably more expensive in the long run than just building a new booster. I don't have the exact numbers but that would be my guess, same as how the shuttle which required heavy refurbishment wasn't all that much more or less efficient than Saturn V. Ares was going to reuse them too, but Slut Launch System will expend them completely, an absolute waste of resources sunk into an already wasteful and inefficient form of rocket in the first place.

>>11454463
>Recovering the empty shell and having to pay for it to be repaired after slamming into the ocean and refilled with solid propellant was probably more expensive in the long run than just building a new booster.

Prove it.

>>11454449
lol
>>11454461
have you tried getting good friends who have cool parties where we sit around and stare at my friend's racecar and then go watch The Grand Tour

>>11454443
I'm middle aged and I'd start smoking weed again if they made it legal. Would save me having to take opiates for when my back and neck starts acting up.
I'm too fucking old to be playing cops and robbers and have to deal with criminals.

>>11454462
spinlaunch to build the tooling.

>>11454462
>Giant spinning machine the size of a small office building.
>Enormous rotating blank several tens of meters wide to produce the necessary nosecone height.
>Any serious error could send tens of tons of steel rolling unpredictably around the facility or slamming into a wall.
Yes...YES!

>>11454466
I'm fully willing to admit that I can't in the spur of the moment, I'm making a guess based on the cost inefficiency of the Shuttle, which is contemporaneous with the 4SSRB, which one can reasonably assume will be slightly cheaper than the SLS's 5SSRB, what with the extra segment and everything. The shuttle, in spite of being reusable with refurbishment, did not significantly improve the cost of sending materiel to orbit compared to the Saturn V, it's predecessor. This would indicate to me that even if the 5SSRB were to be refurbished (which it won't be, flying with SLS) it would not significantly improve it's cost efficiency, because an SRB's physical structure is pretty simple, with most of the time, effort, and thus money being sunk into the design and installation of it's solid propellant. Indeed one of the biggest changes to the 5SSRB will be it's propellant mix, intended to be as cheap as possible to reduce the financial burden of the booster.

>>11454477
>Downtown McAllen was terrorized today by a seventy foot tall steel disc that escaped the local spacex shipyard, traveling at approximately 150 mph
>Five cars and several people were bisected, and the rest of the Rio Grande Valley area has been put on advisory for the disc

>>11454466
I'm not that anon, but I've heard similar things about the SRBs even directly from NASA employees. However, I can't find any documentation on the cost of refurbishment for the SRBs. The most I can find is this NASA document breaking down the expected costs of reuse. It references the Shuttle, but doesn't say anything about the cost of it's boosters.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160013370.pdf

I've also found this interview with a NASA employee who said that reusing the boosters on the Shuttle was feasible because the Shuttle launched frequently. Considering that the SLS is expected to launch just over once every year, we can assume from this that the SLS's boosters aren't going to be reused because it doesn't launch enough to make the economics of reuse viable.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160013370.pdf

>>11454502
Oops, posted the same link twice. Here's the interview I was talking about https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/01/05/why-doesnt-nasa-develop-reusable-rockets/amp/

Musk Starlink and Starship update at 4pm EST @ satshow

>>11454509
Because NASA doesn't really develop jack shit. NASA gets other people to develop for it. People need to get over that misconception.

>>11454304
Musk is clearly bullet proof in that regard he pumped and dumped Amber Heard for a laugh.

SpaceX hasn't been a plucky start up or in any way vulnerable for years. A threat to SpaceX is a threat to national security at this point. If your incel fantasy played out she'd just end up suicided or at least visited by some suits.

Elon Musk's keynote at 4pm EST

youtube.com/watch?v=WwhGC8eV4

>>11454588
They were a plucky startup when they were fucking around with Falcon 1 and failing. They stopped being a plucky startup when NASA handed them $1.6bn and a contract to deliver supplies to the ISS.
They became a world leader in LEO payload delivery with Falcon 9 block 5.

>>11454589
Broken link?

>>11454582
>Because NASA doesn't really develop jack shit. NASA gets other people to develop for it

Yikes, it’s literally the opposite. For example, how do you think Dragon came to be? Tech-transfer from NASA to SpaceX as part of Commercial Cargo. The most obvious example from CC being NASA giving SpaceX the blueprints for their PICA heat shield, which SpaceX adapted into PICA-X and used for both Cargo and Crew Dragon.

>>11454576
2 more hours

>>11454599
broken for me too.

>>11454600
NASA is not in the business of building spaceships. NASA is in the business of giving contractors a list of specs for something they want built.

>>11454613
>NASA is in the business of giving contractors a list of specs for something they want built.

>NASA is not in the business of building spaceships.

Nope, that’s not how contracting works. It’s much more hands on, even with stuff like commercial crew and especially with a NASA-owned asset like Orion, which is in fact a spaceship that NASA are building/have built. By your definition NASA didn’t build the Saturn V or Space Shuttle, or the Curiosity rover because all these projects had contractors involved.

>>11454694
Post more. I NEED more.

>>11454704

>>11454694
i have a mild erection

>>11454704

>>11454705
lolwtf

>>11454599
>>11454609
Update: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwhGC8eV4_4

>>11454694
This is a blue board, anon.

>>11454718
stream ended already

>SpaceX VP Jonathan Hofeller, on Starlink satellite network pricing: Whatever OneWeb says, our price is less.

also:
>SpaceX raising over $500 million, double what Elon Musk's company planned to bring in

it's habbening

>>11454384

>>11454743
>Whatever OneWeb says, our price is less
based

>>11454694
Same energy

>>11454743
>>11454746

Lol, he doesn’t even understand OneWeb’s business plan

>Two announcements from OneWeb to start off #SATShow:

>- global distribution partnership with Hughes (broadband satellite network company)
>- contract with Intellian (builder of mobile satellite antennas) to manufacture user terminals for OneWeb's network.

Art of the deal baby!

>>11454662
Exactly, they're in the business of hiring people to build shit for them to spec.

>>11454743
>https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/09/spacex-raising-500-million-in-new-funding-for-elon-musks-company.html
>Hofeller said the company's fundraising so far has largely not been directed to the Starlink division, as "we've been able to fund the development of Starlink primarily from our internal businesses." He declared the company is in a "different position" in how it raises funds compared to other companies that are building satellite networks.

>"That's why, in general, we've been very quiet about what we're doing because we don't need to go out and raise money for this particular venture," Hofeller said.
500M is not for Starlink. Its for Starship, almost exclusively. They can already self-fund Starlink.

>>11454777
>not understanding the value of PR and bravado

>>11454718
New link?

>>11454794
I prefer actions, that shit is for grifters.

BE-3U engine testing update from Blue Origin:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=6mGDZywAj5c

>>11454804
I mean SpaceX is already ahead in terms of constellation size and their satellites are superior and/or cheaper so I'd say they're fine in that department.

>>11454806
katherine cruz is cute

>>11454806
Neat! Kinda lame that their test footage doesn't include audio though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRiAEPpQzT0

>>11454817
She has same voice modulation as the SpaceX stream girl. BlueOrigin is literally cloning people from SpaceX, LMAO

>>11454821
Considering SpaceX’s retention rate, she probably worked for them at some point...

New link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPV8Xp3pEpI

>>11454865
4mins?

>>11454865
i was at burning man and i was just wondering, what will you do with all the poop??

"oh my god conference attendees literally sprinting when the doors open"
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1237100505433878536

holy shit

>>11454777
Hughes is trash

>>11454880
Elon is bigger than most Rockstars.

>>11454881
But also massive, meaning lots of money for OneWeb if Hughes are buying their bandwidth, which has the nice side effect of making Hughes not as shit anymore.

>>11454880
Like I understand that his companies are literally reinventing multiple industries at this point but I still don't get why people love the man in particular

>>11454893
ok, but OneWeb is bending over for the Russian government so no US military contracts

>>11454893
Sure, but Starlink is set to eat Hughes' lunch (and breakfast, and dinner), which means they're going to shrink fast. Rural folks are a hilariously efficient word-of-mouth network, and most of them hate Hughes. When a better alternative pops up the changeover will be very quick, and even if OneWeb makes Hughes less garbage, spite will keep people from going back.

>>11454900
m e m e s

>>11454920

>chat is enabled

>>11454934
>chat is enabled

>>11454880
Looks more like a light jog to me.

>starts at 430 now
>he has to leave at 5 for a meeting
gonna be a short one

>Static fire & short flights with SN3, longer flights with SN4, but spooling up the whole Starship/Raptor production line is really what matters
>https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1237088353406910465

>>11454964
Elon, it's a hypersonic vehicle, you're going to need to test this shit at scale at some point

>>11454975
That's why they're building a production line up to scale up the test ships. Parts of SN3 is already spotted yesterday, so might do flights by end of this month or next.

>>11454985
>flights by end of this month
You're shitting me

>>11454993
by "flights" he means 200 meter three engine hover

>>11454993
I expect a starship to be off the ground or explode on the test pad this month

>>11454999
Checked, and awesome
>>11455002
HOP preferred, but explosions are fun to watch too

some sick beats rn at sat show

>>11455008
this party sucks

>>11454993
No body expected SN2 after SN1 exploded in just 1 week. We're done with SN2, now SN3 parts are being assembled. So in 3 weeks, it will be SN3 will probably be ready to fly or be very close to flying.

>>11454993
>>11454999
>>11455002
Lol, SpaceX haven’t even managed to secure an FAA license for any Starship flights yet and remember how sceptical the FAA were of Starhopper. So let’s wait if/until they get a launch license before speculating about flights.

>>11455013
Your feet hurt and you wish you were home playing vidya, we know.

HONK HONK HONK

>>11455019
no license required for low hops

>>11455019
Regulatory jewry is such a joke

>>11455019
they did get more launch insurance for the hop; FCC has issued permits for communication. I don't think the FAA will be a big hurdle

>>11455020
I am home playing vidya and it still sucks

>>11455028
>I don't think the FAA will be a big hurdle

The FAA are far more stringent than the FCC, remember when they forced SpaceX to reduce Starhopper’s hop altitude from 200 to 150m.

>>11455028
FAA is a huge hurdle and an annoyance and a cost
It’s another one of those agencies that are way too old and should be scrapped

Starting

someday these MAXAR guys are going to put something up that competes with the KH-11 and the CIA is going to have them all murdered

>>11455037
what stream is running?

>>11455039
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPV8Xp3pEpI

Scott please I don't have time to watch this right now I'm trying to watch Elon meme live
https://youtu.be/aa4ATJGRqA0

>>11455038
Their a more commercially orientated company so I don’t see why they would, also that would piss off NASA who have contracted them to build the Gateway’s power and propulsion module.

always the same questions
boring

>>11455053
Hopefully someones on the ball for the Q&A.

>>11454880
A light jog is not a sprint

>>11455062
Sheets is there, and Foust I think

܂>>11455053
We need an update on the manufacturing of cat girls.

>>11455064
these citypeople wouldn't know a full sprint if they got hit by one

>>11455068
wait what the fuck you can do it the other way too wtf
11455068<< test

܂>>11455074
Kek, copy and paste this symbol here ܂ and then put it in front of the post you're quoting.
It should look like this:
,>>11455074

So how much do you guys think corona chan will affect the space industry in the upcoming months?
slow it down? do nothing at all?

zero
e
r
o

>>11455094
I mean NASA Ames is already on lockdown and mandatory telework because an employee tested positive...

>>11455100
Yeah, my bet is a slowdown and distribution and people getting quarantined all over the place will slow down a lot of things.
Until the west gives up like they did in china and just tell people to go back to work and let the virus run it's course killing off al the old people.

Is Jack Ma wearing an Elon suit.

do you think anybody has ever died of awkwardness

why are normies so FUCKING STUPID

>>11455113
The virus has basically stopped spreading in China.

still not as bad as Guadalajara

This is depressing.

>>11455149
Sure, and nothing happened in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989

>Elon often says college isn’t important, but yet most SpaceX job listings require a college degree...

>>11455167
curious...

>I'll be happy if we just don't go bankrupt like everyone. I will be dead before we get to Mars. Drop out of school.

>>11455167
Yeah but you still need to show exceptional ability. College is something he considers useful to show some sign of perseverance, to slog through all the meaningless shit.

>>11455160
>Sure

Yep. Pathogens follow a bell curve.

>>11455172
>>11455167
Slam into his office on a homemade rocket and you're instahired

>>11455176
once you get out of jail, probably actually

>>11455176
this but unironically
if you can unzip some high quality custom made shit in the interview, you're golden, since that's precisely the thing he wants to see

>>11455149
CCP retard.

>>11455167
It’s not like cheap bastards at spacex are gonna train people

>>11455197
>China is lying when it goes against my beliefs

>>11455229
Sure, china, the nation where
>they drop rocket stages on rural vilages like they dont give a fuck
>send in tanks to pancake protesters
>massive organ trade where the person donating it doesnt have a say in it
>pretty much locking up the entire chinese muslim population and forcing them to eat pork
>responsible for making a shitload of rare animals extinct or almost because of bonerpills
>and lets not forget the more recent trend of pills with ground up fetus in it
>etc....

Yes, those people you can trust.

>>11455248
They’re making a Moonbase: they’re ok by me.

>>11454261
Can confirm this is true, I myself work in a field called regulatory hacking that lets clients do exactly this.

>>11455265
Sure, and india has been a superpower for 3 months now

>>11455270
They’ve done enough to put a fire under America. They’re actual success is secondary to that.

>>11454985
If they can shit these things out for a few million dollars, is there honestly any point making them reusable? Won't the refurb cost more than building one afresh?

>>11455271
I think you mean spaceX.
China is closer to india in terms of development then the US&ESA&ROSCOSMOS

>>11455279
Musk wants airplane levels of refurb needed, but we'll see how feasible that is

>>11455287
Musk also wanted 24 hour turnaround for Falcon 9 Block 5...

>>11455248
>Lists good things about China

https://mars.nasa.gov/resources/curiositys-1-8-billion-pixel-panorama/?site=msl

>>11455351
>Mars is just Earth, but empty
lame. Why are we even bothering?

>>11455476
We can put stuff there.

>>11455476
Because we can.

>>11455476
It’s cool

Just went through my personal library of books and discovered I had a copy of the Life Science Library "Man and Space" Book. The year on the "About this book" page puts publishing in 1964. It certainly has the look and smell of a book that old.

>>11455575
Give it to your great great grandchildren, boomer.

>>11455589
Bitch, I aint even 30 yet.

>>11455575
the cover illustration is the Saturn 1, right?
the upper stage of that was powered by a stupid amount of RL-10 engines

>>11455594
It is a Saturn 1.

On the cover:
"A huge Saturn I rocket roars off the pad at Cape Kennedy in one of the vital preliminaries to manned lunar exploration. It's second stage, which went into orbit weighing almost 19 tons, was designed as forerunner for the third stage of the Apollo moon vehicle."

>>11455594
Looks like it.

>>11455593
Well, have some kids anyway.

>>11455594
Your talking about the initial Saturn 1 which was powered by the S-IV stage (pic-related) which had 6 RL-10s.

>>11455603
This book is referring to the Saturn 1B, specifically it’s S-IVB second-stage which was powered by a single J-2 engine and used as the third-stage for the Saturn V which performed the TLI burn.

>>11455617
no, the book fucked it up and confused the Saturn 1 and the Saturn 1B.

>>11455294
They still plan to do it just to say it can be done, not that it's actually a serious goal for the future of Falcon 9

>>11454152
Are there any figures on how much ice accumulation affects rocket performance in terms of added mass? Or does so much of the ice get shaken off before the clamps are even released that it doesn't matter?

>>11455575
Trash it.

>>11455896
>Or does so much of the ice get shaken off before the clamps are even released that it doesn't matter?
This. A rocket launch is a very violent process. Especially if the rocket is 9 meters in diameter.

>>11455901
Yea I know most of it gets shaken off right away, but it's there for a brief moment, and would continue to form during ascent even if it breaks off quickly.
It's probably still a negligible performance hit, but I just wonder if anyone has ever studied it. Given how focused they are on squeezing out every bit of performance it seems like something they would have looked into at some point.

>>11455913
I'd guess the vibration instantly shakes off anything forming on the surface of the rocket.

Is it just me or was elons autism level through the fucking roof tonight?

>>11455933
I didn't see the video, but judging from your post he must've started screeching at normies and demanded tendies.

>>11455919
Yea but even if the ice all falls as soon as it gets any bigger than a single snowflake; over the entire surface of a large rocket that must be something measurable.
Like just imagine an F9 wet after being rained on. There must be at least several gallons worth of water coating the entire surface area of the rocket. Close to that much moisture would be constantly on the rocket during a portion of the ascent, because it would be accumulating via condensation as fast as it falls off.

>>11455933
Probably didn't sleep enough from his Boca travel. He's probably 90% focused on Starship now.

>>11455933
I imagine he's pretty tired of giving the same basic "we're doing something great" answers that anyone interested could just look up on google.

So I just saw HULLO's video on injectors, and it left me wondering "Would a single element concentric swirl injector work?" Or would that not have good mixture compared to a pintle injector?

>>11455939
So far as I know its insufficient to be worth accounting for, at least in current rockets. Some balloon tanks have collapsed in the past due to excessive icing, it's why WD40 was invented, however if you build the rocket out of something stronger like carbon fiber, aluminum, or steel, it won't be an issue.

>>11455933
He was clearly barely awake at the start, on top of being a major pain to listen to live in general (except the rare moment when he gets on track about something technical).

>>11455575
holy shit I have this too.

>>11455964
For what purpose? The idea is that it's going to mix with the secondary part well, for a single element you can use anything provided it breaks it up into small enough droplets.
I really doubt concentric swirl injectors are the way for single element though.

bump

>>11456305
>For what purpose?
To have an injector as simple as a pintle injector, but not have the alignment worries that a pintle design would have.

>>11456890
Chinese Starship?

>>11456895
>Chinese Starship?
japanese reusability experiment
they're like a decade behind but it's nice to see these developments outside the us

>>11456895
Single element, you're not talking about single fuels, right? Because it was 8:41 in the morning when I wrote that post and that was what I believed when I wrote it.

>>11456890
>>11456895
>Chinese Starship?

No, Japanese DC-X

>>11456899
Oops. I didn't notice the Japanese characters near the bottom.

>they're like a decade behind but it's nice to see these developments outside the us
Everyone is a decade behind SpaceX in terms of reusability, except Blue and ULA. But you're right, it's good to see developments of the technology from different places.

>>11456899
three decades, that's the DC-X

>>11456905
>Everyone is a decade behind SpaceX in terms of reusability, except Blue and ULA.

And Rocket Lab and China

>>11456901
By single element, I am talking about a single major component for the propellant injection. Like the pintle injector. Concentric injectors are usually done with lots of concentric elements. Like what Copenhagen Suborbital is making. What I was wondering if instead of using multiple smaller concentric injectors, a single larger concentric injector is used. Both the fuel and oxidizer would be pumped through this injector like a typical concentric injector, just done on a scale relatively larger than a typical concentric injector.

speaking of china, i thought their space station was going to launch this year?

SLS Delayed HAHAHAHAH

>>11456919
Maybe for teeny tiny engine. Even the tiny engine Copen was demonstrating was using 9 or whatever it was. I have no idea how many SpaceX are intending to use for the Braappptor.

>>11456924
Surprising absolutely nobody. That thing was designed for one purpose and one purpose alone, to bring jobs to various Senators constituents, not to fly anyone anywhere.

>>11456922
No, next year. The Long March 5B which will launch the modules for it, will have it’s first flight this year, carrying China’s next-generation crew capsule prototype.

>>11456922
Next year. Seems like 2021 will be an interesting year for space flight...

>>11456924
...except for the SLS.

>>11456924
Wow, have you been living under a rock for six months? because that’s how long the November 2020 launch date has been obsolete.

>>11456931
But SLS is launching in 2021 idiot...

Jeff Bezos fucking won.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFlviuwr2jg

>"We reported in October 2018 that Core
Stage production is the primary factor contributing to overall SLS launch delays due to its position on the critical path
and corresponding management, technical, and infrastructure issues driven mostly by Boeing’s poor performance.
Boeing’s software development for the ICPS is also an ongoing concern as final modification of the software cannot be
made until NASA finalizes the Artemis I mission requirements. Additionally, with regard to Northrop Grumman’s
Boosters contract, numerous incremental contract modifications and the lack of a NASA appointed on-site technical
monitor have contributed to an administrative burden on NASA management and issues with monitoring contractor
performance. Moreover, both Northrop Grumman and Aerojet have experienced technical issues, with problems
related to the Booster’s Propellant Liner and Insulation and development of RS-25’s new Engine Controller Unit proving
difficult to overcome. "
Artemis final audit report dropped today, they're not being particularly diplomatic.

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-20-012.pdf

>>11456941
He did, in the sense that he lost only $6 billion (out of $117 billion) yesterday whilst Elon also lost $5 billion (out of $38 billion), so he lost a lot less relatively and therefore probably isn’t depressed like Elon was in yesterday’s interview.

>>11456932
It was a delay of the delay. Watch it be 2022 in 6 months

>>11456950
Guess it didn't like line breaks from the pdf, whatever, it's still readable.

>>11456951
SpaceX, which makes up the majority of his wealth is not listed and didnt lose anything dumb dumb.

>>11456954
It’s ok Elon, I understand it’s hard to come to terms with the fact that most your net worth will be wiped out this week.

>>11456950
>NASA continues to struggle managing SLS Program costs and schedule as the launch date for the first integrated SLS/Orion mission slips further
>Rising costs and delays can be attributed to challenges with program management, technical issues, and contractor performance
>For example, the structure of the SLS contracts limits visibility into contract costs and prevents NASA from determining precise costs per element. Specifically, rather than using separate contract line item numbers (CLIN) for each element’s contract deliverables, each of the contracts have used a single CLIN to track all deliverables making it difficult for the Agency to determine if the contractor is meeting cost and schedule commitments for each deliverable.
>Based on our review of SLS Program cost reporting, we found that the Program exceeded its Agency Baseline Commitment (ABC)—that is, the cost and schedule baselines committed to Congress against which a program is measured—by at least 33 percent at the end of fiscal year 2019, a figure that could reach 43 percent or higher if additional delays push the launch date for Artemis I beyond November 2020.
>...further delays in the current Artemis I launch date of November 2020 are likely

>>11456990
>Congress against which a program is measured—by at least 33 percent at the end of fiscal year 2019, a figure that could reach 43 percent or higher if additional delays push the launch date for Artemis I beyond November 2020.
>>...further delays in the current Artemis I launch date of November 2020 are likely

This bit shows how outdated this report is, we’re currently in fiscal year 2020 and it’s been known SLS was targeting spring 2021 for months. Literally nothingburger.

>>11456990
>...further delays in the current Artemis I launch date of November 2020 are likely

I think it’s the GAO who are the real ones behind here, this has been known for ages.

>>11456990
>...further delays in the current Artemis I launch date of November 2020 are likely

No shit Sherlock...

>>11457002
>>11457006
>>11457009
It's not so much that the 2020 goal year not being met that I'm sad about. It's the fact that the whole project is going to be 10% further over budget, even though the thing is built and almost on the pad, because NASA can't manage their contractors.

>>11456950
>issues driven mostly by Boeing’s poor performance
OOH SHIT NIGGUH

>>11457086
Surprised? Yeah, me neither.

>>11457002
>and it’s been known SLS was targeting spring 2021 for months
SLS is being delayed to 'second half of 2021' though

>>11457097
I fear even that is going to be wildly optimistic.

>>11457100
what the fuck is delaying them at this point, it's literally already done

>>11457097
The actual quote was “mid to late 2021” but SLS doesn’t currently have an official launch target, so I’m just waiting until one is announced.

>>11457100
One of the main goals of Doug Loverro’s Artemis review is to produce a realistic target for Artemis 1, whatever date is released it will be what NASA consider realistic.

>>11457115
There’s nothing to delay because SLS doesn’t currently have a date, NASA are trying to find a realistic date for A1 they can hit.

>>11456934
Lol doubtful

>>11457115
If you don’t launch you still get paid, and there is no risk of embarrassment or going “well what’s the payload or purpose?”

so how's that green run going

>>11457143
Welcome to government contracts. "Thanks for bringing JERBS to our state, Senators! Of course we'll vote for you next term!"

>>11457150
>>11457150
The only place you can find information on what’s happening is NSF L2 SLS and my membership ran out. The recent GAO report is irrelevant in regards to the Green Run because it’s based on stuff that happened in 2019.

>>11454900
Internet meme man and awkward nerd who forces everyone to put up with his antics by virtue of his skill (and fortune).
Also his attitude of "see what needs to be fixed and then going ahead, dedicating yourself to it and fixing it yourself" is pretty inspiring. Especially since it seems to be 100% sincere.

>>11457150
WTF are they even doing there? The core is on the site. Are they just standing around picking their noses?

>>11457197
must be

>a single SLS rocket engine will cost ~75 million dollars a piece

>>11457213
You can buy >800 Falcon 9 fully expendable launches for the price of SLS program cost 2030.

>>11457213
Well it'll pay for itself through all those reuses at least, right?

>>11457197
>WTF are they even doing there?

There’s loads of articles on NSF that go into agonising detail over what exactly they are doing there. This is the latest one:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/02/boeing-sls-cs-green-run-checkouts-completing-first-test/

>>11457217
How many Real American Jobs you could have kept going with those so called 'falcons', huh?

ZERO!

>>11457217

>>11457213
>a single SLS rocket engine will cost more than a Falcon 9 launch

>>11457219
That's for the non reusable new production model designed from the get go for maximum cost efficiency.

>>11457226
None of those light-lift rockets could ever dream of sending the All-American-Made Orion Spaceship around the Moon so I'm afraid the comparison is meaningless.

>>11457233
>non reusable

>>11457213
>>11457219
>>11457246
the purpose of SLS is embezzlement
it was never supposed to fly

>>11457250
Not embezzlement if legal.

>>11457240
Falcon 9 expendable mode is a heavy lift vehicle. Falcon Heavy in partially expendable or fully expendable mode is super-heavy lift.
Reminder for those who don't know;

Less than 2 tons = Small lift
2 tons to 20 tons = Medium lift
20 tons to 50 tons = Heavy lift
Greater than 50 tons = Super Heavy lift

>>11457246
They aren't going to reuse the reusable engines they robbed from air and space museums, either

>>11457266
Can't wait until we get to the ultra heavy era of rocketry.

>>11457266
light, medium, heavy, super heavy
light, not small

>>11457222
hmmmm
so right now they're finishing hooking up the engines and then wiring up the sensors
then they're going to do a wet dress rehearsal, then they're going to do a static fire
only they'll take a year instead of the day it takes a normal rocket company

>>11457269
What next, digging up Von Braun and Korolev touse their bones for propellant?

>>11457277
Sounds metal as hell desu.

>>11457213
>$75 million
>for a single fucking engine
What the fuck
How do you even design an engine to make it that expensive?

>>11457276
When your engines cost 100million and you have no supplier to build more, then you gotta be careful with em, I guess

>>11457256
Super not embezzlement if it‘s mandated by law.

>>11457281
The engine was designed in the 60s when NASA still hand fitted everything like a BMW manufacturer.

>>11457281
By designing it for full refurbishment and then dumping them in the ocean immediately.

>>11457281
Well studying old schematics and samples from the 70's is difficult they didn't even have CAD then so you have to like you know read through papers and stuff and some of our employees are bad with english so a lot of management is needed to keep things going smoothly so nobody accidentally removes some important part and uh quality simply comes at a price.

>>11457294
TBF the new RS-25E's are meant to be expendable.

>>11457294
The flight legac-museum hardware from the shuttles comes at a price of around 50 million.

>>11457312
Source?

>>11457213
Fuck, you could slap together an Apollo style moon shot with two falcon heavy launches. The fully fueled CSM weighed in around 50 tons, and the block II was substantially lighter, while the LM fully fueled for both ascent and descent weighed around 16 tons. You could build a fuckoff big LM, and if you built a capsule with twice the internal volume of Dragon you'd still only be at half the CSM's dry weight, add on a propulsion bus and you've got a modern Apollo.

>>11454423
You are dense.

>>11455303
Kek

>>11457354
NASA hasn't been about doing things efficiently ever since Apollo. If they were, then they would've been back to the moon by now. Instead, they're really about doing whatever is necessary to stay relevant to the government while doing as little as possible to seem less wasteful.

>haven't been here since last year
>starship still hasn't flown
>sls delayed again
>new glenn looks like vapourware
>skylon confirmed vapourware
the sad truth is that every 20 years or so there's hype about new rocket tech and mars missions/return to moon but it always comes to nothing. you will realise this by 2025.

>>11457416
>Starship still hasn't flown
but there's hardware now, which is pretty remarkable

>>11455248
>pretty much locking up the entire chinese muslim population and forcing them to eat pork
wtf I love china now

>>11457274
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_vehicle#Mass_to_orbit
I dunno what to tell you, man

>>11457416
>new glenn looks like vapourware
Have you not seen the hardware Blue is building for New Glenn?

>>11457436
wiki gay

>>11457431
The only problem I have with that is that pork shouldn’t be eaten by any humans period

>>11457287
>>11457294
>>11457301
They redesigned the engine to make a new expendable version that can do slightly higher thrust and gets rid of the reusability considerations.
That's the one that costs $70 million per unit.

>>11457439
Why not

>>11457439
You belong in a desert tent with the other primitives then.

>>11457431
>>11457439
It's sad that China is getting away with concentration camp-tier shit just because the west has beef with a totally unrelated bunch of Wahhabist Arabs 5,000 miles away

>>11457452
>wahabbist arabs 5000 miles away
fuck all muslims, everywhere

>>11457343
OIG report page 6 has various numbers thrown around.
>https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-20-012.pdf

>>11457463
>a leftist saying all white people are racist is bad
>this is okay

>>11457354
They shot that one down because f9 upper stages are too thin and have too much thrust for orion. Non-american capsules are not considered as an option.

>>11457272
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6YJ5oIcT4g

>>11457416
Starship's been blowing up full n1 style and they are ramping up production now for more bombastic action wtf are you smoking?

>>11457473
Why yes I am a racist, how could you tell?

>>11457479
>have too much thrust for orion
Looks like Orion is too weak.

>>11457485
despite the 'muh girl powah', For All Mankind is actually a decent show, would recommend pirating.
If it's how things really could have turned out, Apollo 11 being first was a mistake

>>11457485
>muh seadragon
Literally impossible to build that engine and it's bell with current tech&material knowledge.

Ah, the beauty of machining...

>>11457588
This
Sea Dragon works on paper if you ignore combustion instability and harmonics. It could have been possible to get away with pressure fed engines arranged in clusters on both stages. but that'd add dry mass and complexity and therefore cost while reducing performance.

Giant, dumb, pressure-fed boosters will work great on low gravity worlds like the various moons in the solar system, where delta V costs are low, there's no atmosphere to get in the way, and you don't need gigantic engines anyway. For Earth however, there will always be a minimum level of complexity, and that level is greater than what qualifies as a big dumb booster.

>>11457597
So uh, you gonna tell us just what the frig that thing is?

ngl, I'm starting to think the only way we're ever getting off this planet is by letting climate change irreversibly make it inhospitable to humans

>>11457618
A panel for the Artemis III Orion

>>11454433
guns > weed

>>11457703
amen, brother

>>11457441
>when your expendable rocket engine costs exactly as much as a reusable rocket booster
I don‘t understand this expendability meme...

>>11457717
that's the same price for an expendable Falcon 9

>>11457724
yeesh

>>11457531
But it's not "muh girl powah" at all. It's only "The fucking commies brought women, now we have to do it as well. Fuck the Soviets! God damn it!" as well as ERA only being voted in because a Republican state voted for it so they could get a third rate company to supply pumps to the Saturn V which had a rather poor outcome to say the least.

>>11457724
Just strap four Falcon Heavy cores together and scrap the hydrogen meme stage.

>>11457717
>>11457724
Google says the cost of an original RS-25 (Shuttle era) is $40 million, whilst the cost of an RS-25E is estimated to be around $28 million (30% cheaper). That’s still expensive, but I don’t understand where this $75 million figure is coming from.

>>11457717
I just don't understand this expendable rockets meme.

The amount of money you can save from expending rockets isn’t enough to justify how much harder it makes to frequently carry the cargo that usually make money in the launching world. I’m sure one day expendability will be more effective, but the truth is that when you have all the challenges that come with rocket science in general, it’s almost always much more effective to keep the rocket after it’s done its job than to figure out how to make expendability part of the mission. I know of no major technology on the near term horizon that would change that.

Even if expendable rockets are viable now, but when reliability is THE number one priority (in this case the payload takes up 2/3rds of the cost and the actual rocket only 1/3rd) it makes absolutely no sense. Like, look at this rocket (pic related). This represents some of the most advanced technologies in the space flight world. Do you honestly think that such a complicated machine can be made cheaply and consistently enough to be expendable? I doubt it. Best example in my opinion are cars, sure you could expend them but making sure that they do not suffer a drop in reliability will cost a lot of money and time.

Just because some government agency made expending rockets popular, then that doesn't mean that we will have the sci-fi future of millions of tons of metal dumped into the ocean per year. We'll be lucky to see more than a couple dozen per year. Dial down your expectations, don't buy into the expendability for rockets' meme.

>>11457747
This meme is really getting old and stale

>>11457744
Or, just ask SpaceX for a core stage that they can put Raptors on. Make the solids optional, put 9 Raptors on a thinner diameter steel core stage.

>>11457751
It's come full circle

>>11457761
Imagine if the SLS core stage cost 3 million bucks to make.

>>11457776
Meant 6

>>11457747
Didnt some spaceX engineer accidently blurt out that the internal launch price for a used falcon9 is like 23 million or something, that's ridiculously cheap.

>>11457781
No, he said $30 million. Which is in line with what people estimated based off past.

>>11457794
still, thats really cheap right?

>>11457794
*statements

>>11457797
Probably, nobody building rockets actually releases their cost to build per booster (at least on purpose). We can assume it’s cheaper than the competition, considering they have to charge more for an Atlas 5 or Ariane 5 flight to be profitable (or they could just be massively ripping off their customers, but that’s unlikely) and because SpaceX’s manufacturing methods are generally considered cheaper at this time, although both ULA and Arianespace are closing that gap with their next-generation launchers.

>>11457630
That's how we got off Mars.

>>11457797
Yes, its really cheap. Every other reuse reduces the cost by 1/3 or so each time.

>>11457794
I though the cost of *producing* a first F9 stage was like 12 mil?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhyDY3kuShQ

NASA playing hide the SLS cost

>>11457990
They didn’t purposefully try and hide anything, there’s just confusion and crossover between the cost of Artemis 1 and SLS program costs, leading to misrepresentation of actual costs.

>>11458017
Yes, the video is trying to simplify complex accountant juggling and doing it badly. Also the handful people who actually watch the video will be surprised that SLS is only two years behind schedule despite all the media hyperbole.

>>11457964
the internal cost for the launch all-up with the new second stage and the ground service and everything is $30 million

>>11457751
I just don't understand this expendable meme meme.

The amount of...

nah.

>>11457447
Piggos did nothing wrong. They don’t deserve to be eaten.

>>11457630
Climate change can’t make earth inhospitable for humans unless you’re talking about in hundreds of millions of years when the sun makes earth generally uninhabitable. Humans live everywhere from the arctic circle to the Sahara. We’re not going anywhere, despite your edgy fantasies.

>>11458125
Climate change is already making a lot of equatorial islands uninhabitable from repeated severe weather and desertification and ecological collapse have already begun on a lesser scale. The rapidity of change is the important metric and without the appropriate time to build up (as we had with the thousands of years it took people to occupy those fringe places) areas can be rendered entirely unlivable. Obviously with enough effort and technology we can live everywhere, but that's not "habitable".

>>11458162
>Little islands with barely anyone on them, oh no!

>and ecological collapse have already begun on a lesser scale.

Ecological collapse has no relevance to humans because humans don’t get any food from the ecosphere except fish, and fish are now mostly farmed rather than caught, so wild animals going extinct has fuck-all impact on us.

>>11457751
So we shouldn't reuse it?

>>11458179
amazing how wrong people can be

>>11458245

>>11458037
The sls schedule and budget was always a joke from the get go
Also ignoring the 5 years wasted where the sls was the Ares v

>>11458334
>Also ignoring the 5 years wasted where the sls was the Ares v

Ares V was a constantly fluctuating, chronically underfunded concept that never left paper, SLS on the other hand physically exists. They are not the same thing.

>>11458348
Still had a budget for a couple years
Even if they didn’t actually do anything

SLS has been funded at 1.5 billion a year, for like 10 years now
Imagine what a real company that isn’t a defence contractor or government bureaucrats could do with that money.

>>11458365
>Even if they didn’t actually do anything
TBF it seemed like the Obama administration didn't want much to do with space flight, so it was probably hard to get anything done.

>>11458365
>SLS has been funded at 1.5 billion a year, for like 10 years now

Since 2014, so 7 years now.

>>11458371
The SLS program is still suffering from the lack of direction and oversight provided by the Obama administration, lots of later problems can traced to their poor leadership,

>>11458037
>only two years
After the move from 2016-2020 but that's not counted. It only counts 2020-late 2021 as only "two years" behind. Its 6 years behind by initial estimate.

>>11458442
Don't forget that in 2014 the SLS was supposedly nearly ready for the test stand at Stennis.

>>11458442
>>11458450
I’m just saying it how the GAO does and that’s what matters at the end of the day, no amount of mental gymnastics will change it.

>>11458463
>I’m just saying it how the GAO does and that’s what matters at the end of the day
Not really since NASA didn't really seem to care about what the GAO said.

>>11458463
GAO says its late 2 years after the official date projected launch change. GAO is speaking within the terms set by NASA.

>>11458468
Well people treat the GAO as gospel these days, but I like NASA often disagree with them. I equate the way they base their reports about programs off small “snapshots” in time (as officials have described) and release these reports months later (making them outdated) and without context, to borderline misinformation. I also hate how they constantly bring up old problems from years ago that aren’t relevant anymore in reports.

>>11454744

New Thread: >>11458544

>>11458269
Yes, it really is amazing how wrong you are. Gonna throw some plastic on the ground today to encourage ecological collapse.