User Panel
|
Every space entity compared to SpaceX is like chimps flinging poo vs H. Sapiens building early cities.
|
|
|
Quoted: https://twitter.com/SpaceXFleet/status/1386794155653926917?s=20 I don't know how to do the Twitter thing. Pegasus barge should be coming in today. Maybe @Dagger41 will see it if he's hanging out at the port. https://twitter.com/SpaceXFleet/status/1386995787251474432?s=20 View Quote Yeah I went to the East side of the lock (real good spot) and watched them park Pegasus in the 2nd basin. Too far away to get decent pics and they were farting around with it getting turned around. Waited around for a bit , got bored and left. |
|
|
|
|
Quoted: I should hope I've established myself as a pretty serious critic of the old space establishment by now. But ouch! That's a bit harsh. View Quote no no. hes got a point. No one can touch spacex's value. the issue is starship will not be human rated for a while and spacex wont really be developing any other capability for a while. SLS as a human rated Super Heavy is going to be a capability that we havent had for like 45 years. SLS will literally have value to launch interplanetary ORION and will be a monopoly for a while. So i believe SLS is valuable until its capability are repeated by like literally anyone. IF i was blue origin i would be making a ORION knockoff ASAP. it would have to be cheaper than 20 BILLION development and 900 MILLION a pop. then SLS would lie in its shallow grave. but not until then. |
|
Quoted: no no. hes got a point. No one can touch spacex's value. the issue is starship will not be human rated for a while and spacex wont really be developing any other capability for a while. SLS as a human rated Super Heavy is going to be a capability that we havent had for like 45 years. SLS will literally have value to launch interplanetary ORION and will be a monopoly for a while. So i believe SLS is valuable until its capability are repeated by like literally anyone. IF i was blue origin i would be making a ORION knockoff ASAP. it would have to be cheaper than 20 BILLION development and 900 MILLION a pop. then SLS would lie in its shallow grave. but not until then. View Quote SLS is valuable because it would still be redundant dissimilar architecture that can throw well over 100 tons to LEO. 1b will be capable of well over 130 tons to LEO. |
|
Quoted: SLS is valuable because it would still be redundant dissimilar architecture that can throw well over 100 tons to LEO. 1b will be capable of well over 130 tons to LEO. View Quote That redundancy isnt worth the $$$ For the ~$2b per year you'd spend on SLS that's enough to launch 30,000 tonnes into orbit with Starship. That's not a typo... literally 4 Virginia nuclear subs worth of payload. |
|
Bezos be all like "No, NASA, no! Pleez make the moon wimminz ride my space dildo! It will help me finally finish Leather Goddesses of Phobos: The Motion Picture!"
|
|
Quoted: That redundancy isnt worth the $$$ For the ~$2b per year you'd spend on SLS that's enough to launch 30,000 tonnes into orbit with Starship. That's not a typo... literally 4 Virginia nuclear subs worth of payload. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: SLS is valuable because it would still be redundant dissimilar architecture that can throw well over 100 tons to LEO. 1b will be capable of well over 130 tons to LEO. That redundancy isnt worth the $$$ For the ~$2b per year you'd spend on SLS that's enough to launch 30,000 tonnes into orbit with Starship. That's not a typo... literally 4 Virginia nuclear subs worth of payload. I'm with an old school space company right now and they are just absolutely struggling to "get" how cheap the new space stuff is using mostly automotive cots components. Longevity and reliability isn't as much of a factor when you're launching dozens, hundreds, or thousands of something to LEO but they have to de-orbit in 5-7 years and you've built failure into your constellation. We're off by as much as 10x on price for certain things lol. |
|
Quoted: Yep. SLS is a terrible business case for near-earth payload launch. But that wasn't really the point of it anyway. I'm with an old school space company right now and they are just absolutely struggling to "get" how cheap the new space stuff is using mostly automotive cots components. Longevity and reliability isn't as much of a factor when you're launching dozens, hundreds, or thousands of something to LEO but they have to de-orbit in 5-7 years and you've built failure into your constellation. We're off by as much as 10x on price for certain things lol. View Quote Would you rather spend 6 months in an Orion capsule or 6 months in a Starship? Nick |
|
Quoted: SLS is also shitty for anything NOT "near earth". Would you rather spend 6 months in an Orion capsule or 6 months in a Starship? Nick View Quote |
|
Quoted: SLS is also shitty for anything NOT "near earth". Would you rather spend 6 months in an Orion capsule or 6 months in a Starship? Nick View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Yep. SLS is a terrible business case for near-earth payload launch. But that wasn't really the point of it anyway. I'm with an old school space company right now and they are just absolutely struggling to "get" how cheap the new space stuff is using mostly automotive cots components. Longevity and reliability isn't as much of a factor when you're launching dozens, hundreds, or thousands of something to LEO but they have to de-orbit in 5-7 years and you've built failure into your constellation. We're off by as much as 10x on price for certain things lol. Would you rather spend 6 months in an Orion capsule or 6 months in a Starship? Nick Which one has more closets for a discrete space jack or do I have to do it in where some NASA dork can watch me without paying tree fiddy a month for my OnlyFans? Kharn |
|
|
Quoted: no no. hes got a point. No one can touch spacex's value. the issue is starship will not be human rated for a while and spacex wont really be developing any other capability for a while. SLS as a human rated Super Heavy is going to be a capability that we havent had for like 45 years. SLS will literally have value to launch interplanetary ORION and will be a monopoly for a while. So i believe SLS is valuable until its capability are repeated by like literally anyone. IF i was blue origin i would be making a ORION knockoff ASAP. it would have to be cheaper than 20 BILLION development and 900 MILLION a pop. then SLS would lie in its shallow grave. but not until then. View Quote This is so stupid that you should feel embarrassed. Nothing you say at this point has any worth. |
|
Quoted: This is so stupid that you should feel embarrassed. Nothing you say at this point has any worth. View Quote Why? You think they should just copy starship? I get it. But starship is so much long game. It will need to be an order of magnitude more reliable that falcon 9 booster landings before humans can land on earth on it. That might be a decade out. Or never. We need a non 900M SLS +900M Orion per launch option for interplanetary travel. Starship can be the ship and the lander but we have zero idea when we will replace capsule re entry. |
|
Quoted: Why? You think they should just copy starship? I get it. But starship is so much long game. It will need to be an order of magnitude more reliable that falcon 9 booster landings before humans can land on earth on it. That might be a decade out. Or never. We need a non 900M SLS +900M Orion per launch option for interplanetary travel. Starship can be the ship and the lander but we have zero idea when we will replace capsule re entry. View Quote Nick |
|
Quoted: Though Falcon Heavy was in the super heavy category? View Quote If it is reusable - meaning you are landing and recovering the boosters - then it is heavy lift. If you are willing to expend the boosters, then it is super heavy lift ... but the customer is obviously going to pay a lot more. |
|
Quoted: If it is reusable - meaning you are landing and recovering the boosters - then it is heavy lift. If you are willing to expend the boosters, then it is super heavy lift ... but the customer is obviously going to pay a lot more. View Quote Think the fully expendable falcon heavy is going for around $150 million per launch.. Somewhere around the cost of a single SLS engine.................... |
|
Quoted: If it is reusable - meaning you are landing and recovering the boosters - then it is heavy lift. If you are willing to expend the boosters, then it is super heavy lift ... but the customer is obviously going to pay a lot more. View Quote But if I understand. Kerosene no good for longer missions in space. And the fairing size is teeny Tiny for falcon heavy. |
|
Quoted: But if I understand. Kerosene no good for longer missions in space. And the fairing size is teeny Tiny for falcon heavy. View Quote Not sure anyone uses kerosene for anything out of atmosphere. Don’t know about fairing size. Was commenting on “SLS big ass orange rocket. We've spent 20 billion so far and we are about to have the first Super Heavy class rocket since SaturnV.” In your OP. |
|
Quoted: I don't think you actually get it. For interplanetary, you absolutely cannot use Orion or any similar size. For multiple months travel time, it is TOO SMALL. Nick View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Why? You think they should just copy starship? I get it. But starship is so much long game. It will need to be an order of magnitude more reliable that falcon 9 booster landings before humans can land on earth on it. That might be a decade out. Or never. We need a non 900M SLS +900M Orion per launch option for interplanetary travel. Starship can be the ship and the lander but we have zero idea when we will replace capsule re entry. Nick I think I understand what yobro is saying or at least the intent was possibly that using a capsule for the purpose of getting up and down to any interplanetary support vehicle? Orion capsule isn't designed for a sole trip anywhere except for the Moon. It's free flight capability is IIRC around 2 weeks maybe a little longer. Any Mars mission or long duration talk has always been coupled with a form of a gateway type system. Starship HLS free flight capability is unknown except for it will be covered with solar panels for power generation. With that necessity it isn't coming back down to Earth. There really is no one and done vehicle at all with the free flight endurance and necessary subsystems to get to Mars, up and down. Never mind the estimated 2000 cubic feet of cargo volume for food alone on a to Mars and back flight. |
|
|
Quoted: Not sure anyone uses kerosene for anything out of atmosphere. Don't know about fairing size. Was commenting on "SLS big ass orange rocket. We've spent 20 billion so far and we are about to have the first Super Heavy class rocket since SaturnV." In your OP. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Not sure anyone uses kerosene for anything out of atmosphere. Don’t know about fairing size. Was commenting on “SLS big ass orange rocket. We've spent 20 billion so far and we are about to have the first Super Heavy class rocket since SaturnV.” In your OP. View Quote Imma let you finish. But you gotta give me a ‘come on dude’ because falcon heavy with a teeny tiny payload volume can launch an absolute max of 64 ton and likely never will do this. While the weakest SLS can do 95 Tons with a big volume. FH max 64 tons SLS minimum 95 tons(50% increase) SS (95-150 tons) |
|
Quoted: I think I understand what yobro is saying or at least the intent was possibly that using a capsule for the purpose of getting up and down to any interplanetary support vehicle? Orion capsule isn't designed for a sole trip anywhere except for the Moon. It's free flight capability is IIRC around 2 weeks maybe a little longer. Any Mars mission or long duration talk has always been coupled with a form of a gateway type system. Starship HLS free flight capability is unknown except for it will be covered with solar panels for power generation. With that necessity it isn't coming back down to Earth. There really is no one and done vehicle at all with the free flight endurance and necessary subsystems to get to Mars, up and down. Never mind the estimated 2000 cubic feet of cargo volume for food alone on a to Mars and back flight. View Quote NASA restarted the NERVA program which means they intend to design and build a nuclear powered Mars transfer vehicle in orbit with SLS. That sort of MTV would blow Starship out of the water for a LOT of reasons. Main among them being the 1000+ ISP. |
|
Quoted: Imma let you finish. But you gotta give me a 'come on dude' because falcon heavy with a teeny tiny payload volume can launch an absolute max of 64 ton and likely never will do this. While the weakest SLS can do 95 Tons with a big volume. FH max 64 tons SLS minimum 95 tons(50% increase) SS (95-150 tons) View Quote |
|
|
Quoted: But if I understand. Kerosene no good for longer missions in space. And the fairing size is teeny Tiny for falcon heavy. View Quote There's nothing inherently wrong with using kerolox for long duration missions. The Russian DM upper stages use kerolox and they are long duration. It was originally designed for use on the N-1 moon rocket, but eventually found use on the Proton and Zenit rockets. Proton uses mostly the hypergolic "Breeze" (Briz-M) upper stage now though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blok_D Of course, using kerolox though you get the problems you have with storing any cryogenics. Falcon Heavy is also getting a larger PLF as part of the NSSL deal, but yes it's still not nearly as large as the 8-9m PLF on SLS. New Glenn will have a 7m PLF, and Tory Bruno has also said that Vulcan could fit a 7m+ PLF if it needed to as well. |
|
Quoted: Imma let you finish. But you gotta give me a ‘come on dude’ because falcon heavy with a teeny tiny payload volume can launch an absolute max of 64 ton and likely never will do this. While the weakest SLS can do 95 Tons with a big volume. FH max 64 tons SLS minimum 95 tons(50% increase) SS (95-150 tons) View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Not sure anyone uses kerosene for anything out of atmosphere. Don’t know about fairing size. Was commenting on “SLS big ass orange rocket. We've spent 20 billion so far and we are about to have the first Super Heavy class rocket since SaturnV.” In your OP. Imma let you finish. But you gotta give me a ‘come on dude’ because falcon heavy with a teeny tiny payload volume can launch an absolute max of 64 ton and likely never will do this. While the weakest SLS can do 95 Tons with a big volume. FH max 64 tons SLS minimum 95 tons(50% increase) SS (95-150 tons) The “problem” with SLS is not the tonnage, it’s the price per ton, which is completely ridiculous compared to Falcon Heavy. Falcon Heavy costs about $150 million for a launch, whereas SLS will apparently cost about $2000 million for a launch. So you get 50% more payload, but at about 13 times the cost. But if you absolutely need to put one single item into orbit that weighs around 90 tons, then right now the only option available is SLS, because Falcon Heavy cannot do it ... but, boy, are you (the taxpayer) going to pay. |
|
Quoted: NASA restarted the NERVA program which means they intend to design and build a nuclear powered Mars transfer vehicle in orbit with SLS. That sort of MTV would blow Starship out of the water for a LOT of reasons. Main among them being the 1000+ ISP. View Quote I believe that was a Trump administration act, to fund a bit of research to look into it again. As much as I hate to say it - because I think it’s a great idea, and should never have been abandoned - I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that it will be going exactly nowhere, and the funding will NOT be renewed. |
|
Quoted: The “problem” with SLS is not the tonnage, it’s the price per ton, which is completely ridiculous compared to Falcon Heavy. Falcon Heavy costs about $150 million for a launch, whereas SLS will apparently cost about $2000 million for a launch. So you get 50% more payload, but at about 13 times the cost. But if you absolutely need to put one single item into orbit that weighs around 90 tons, then right now the only option available is SLS, because Falcon Heavy cannot do it ... but, boy, are you (the taxpayer) going to pay. View Quote Our whole civilization seems to be either at or approaching a variety of weird scientific, engineering and most importantly, bureaucratic friction points. The bureaucrats are irrelevant and they know it. But they are unwilling to cede power. There are forces... Bubbling just under the surface of incredible strength. What I generally refer to as positive destructive forces. The longer the bureaucrats keep these forces clamped down the more they ferment into negative destructive forces. Which is probably the bureaucrats plan. To make people so utterly terrified of change that they will stick with the cozy old way of doing things. Even if it is... Quite literally killing people. A few more things need to fall into place. Perhaps this recent oil company cyberattack might be the last piece to fall into place? We already have alternate currencies in the form of crypto currencies. As these forces are let loose the old establishments will become more irrelevant and prone to violence. As to what effect this will have on SLS? Well, let's say that our civilization goes into a depression. If there is that kind of serious economic downturn. Even with available components left over from the Shuttle program. Will they be able to fly this absurdly expensive rocket if millions of people can't scrape together enough money for food? We talk about SpaceX making SLS obsolete. But I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the "filthy poors" decommissioning SLS. They have wanted to dismember NASA and give that money to themsel... Oops! I mean the poor and homeless for decades. |
|
Quoted: The "problem" with SLS is not the tonnage, it's the price per ton, which is completely ridiculous compared to Falcon Heavy. Falcon Heavy costs about $150 million for a launch, whereas SLS will apparently cost about $2000 million for a launch. So you get 50% more payload, but at about 13 times the cost. But if you absolutely need to put one single item into orbit that weighs around 90 tons, then right now the only option available is SLS, because Falcon Heavy cannot do it ... but, boy, are you (the taxpayer) going to pay. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not sure anyone uses kerosene for anything out of atmosphere. Don't know about fairing size. Was commenting on "SLS big ass orange rocket. We've spent 20 billion so far and we are about to have the first Super Heavy class rocket since SaturnV." In your OP. Imma let you finish. But you gotta give me a 'come on dude' because falcon heavy with a teeny tiny payload volume can launch an absolute max of 64 ton and likely never will do this. While the weakest SLS can do 95 Tons with a big volume. FH max 64 tons SLS minimum 95 tons(50% increase) SS (95-150 tons) The "problem" with SLS is not the tonnage, it's the price per ton, which is completely ridiculous compared to Falcon Heavy. Falcon Heavy costs about $150 million for a launch, whereas SLS will apparently cost about $2000 million for a launch. So you get 50% more payload, but at about 13 times the cost. But if you absolutely need to put one single item into orbit that weighs around 90 tons, then right now the only option available is SLS, because Falcon Heavy cannot do it ... but, boy, are you (the taxpayer) going to pay. Except when would you actually get that 90T on one SLS into orbit? Heavy's already had 3 successful launches and have more manifested. You'd be better off launching on two heavies with a split payload and pocketing the difference and more importantly the time. SLS will *hopefully* get it's first unmanned launch later this year with manned launches in 23/24. By that time Musk would have re-designed falcon heavy to fly around in space to teabag the SLS just to be a smug prick. |
|
Quoted: I believe that was a Trump administration act, to fund a bit of research to look into it again. As much as I hate to say it - because I think it's a great idea, and should never have been abandoned - I think it's a pretty safe assumption that it will be going exactly nowhere, and the funding will NOT be renewed. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: NASA restarted the NERVA program which means they intend to design and build a nuclear powered Mars transfer vehicle in orbit with SLS. That sort of MTV would blow Starship out of the water for a LOT of reasons. Main among them being the 1000+ ISP. I believe that was a Trump administration act, to fund a bit of research to look into it again. As much as I hate to say it - because I think it's a great idea, and should never have been abandoned - I think it's a pretty safe assumption that it will be going exactly nowhere, and the funding will NOT be renewed. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/g-28367i_prdlabs.pdf |
|
Quoted: Except when would you actually get that 90T on one SLS into orbit? Heavy's already had 3 successful launches and have more manifested. You'd be better off launching on two heavies with a split payload and pocketing the difference and more importantly the time. SLS will *hopefully* get it's first unmanned launch later this year with manned launches in 23/24. By that time Musk would have re-designed falcon heavy to fly around in space to teabag the SLS just to be a smug prick. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not sure anyone uses kerosene for anything out of atmosphere. Don't know about fairing size. Was commenting on "SLS big ass orange rocket. We've spent 20 billion so far and we are about to have the first Super Heavy class rocket since SaturnV." In your OP. Imma let you finish. But you gotta give me a 'come on dude' because falcon heavy with a teeny tiny payload volume can launch an absolute max of 64 ton and likely never will do this. While the weakest SLS can do 95 Tons with a big volume. FH max 64 tons SLS minimum 95 tons(50% increase) SS (95-150 tons) The "problem" with SLS is not the tonnage, it's the price per ton, which is completely ridiculous compared to Falcon Heavy. Falcon Heavy costs about $150 million for a launch, whereas SLS will apparently cost about $2000 million for a launch. So you get 50% more payload, but at about 13 times the cost. But if you absolutely need to put one single item into orbit that weighs around 90 tons, then right now the only option available is SLS, because Falcon Heavy cannot do it ... but, boy, are you (the taxpayer) going to pay. Except when would you actually get that 90T on one SLS into orbit? Heavy's already had 3 successful launches and have more manifested. You'd be better off launching on two heavies with a split payload and pocketing the difference and more importantly the time. SLS will *hopefully* get it's first unmanned launch later this year with manned launches in 23/24. By that time Musk would have re-designed falcon heavy to fly around in space to teabag the SLS just to be a smug prick. Sure, but that’s why I made it “one single item” that cannot be broken into several pieces. I am certain that SLS can do what it says it can do. After all, it’s using proven technology, and there’s no real uncertainty involved in anything it is intended to do. Literally all it needs is money to burn. So if we suddenly had an Armageddon (movie) type scenario, and needed to get a 90-ton drilling rig into space within a month ... SLS is the only existing system that could do it right now. Of course, with the pace of Starship rapid prototyping and development, who knows how quick SpaceX might get there? ... and who knows what unexpected delays SLS might run into? So I definitely acknowledge your point. |
|
Quoted: Sure, but that’s why I made it “one single item” that cannot be broken into several pieces. I am certain that SLS can do what it says it can do. After all, it’s using proven technology, and there’s no real uncertainty involved in anything it is intended to do. Literally all it needs is money to burn. So if we suddenly had an Armageddon (movie) type scenario, and needed to get a 90-ton drilling rig into space within a month ... SLS is the only existing system that could do it right now. Of course, with the pace of Starship rapid prototyping and development, who knows how quick SpaceX might get there? ... and who knows what unexpected delays SLS might run into? So I definitely acknowledge your point. View Quote that's granted when the Ares, now SLS was first conceived, it was a good, maybe great idea as a space shuttle replacement, especially before before spacex was a known contender. However with all the delays and decades taken, SLS's window of usefulness has become very short, now its unclear how much viable time it has, a couple of years at most and If SLS experiences more significant delays, it will be retired after only a few long overdue scheduled launches. |
|
Quoted: Imma let you finish. But you gotta give me a ‘come on dude’ because falcon heavy with a teeny tiny payload volume can launch an absolute max of 64 ton and likely never will do this. While the weakest SLS can do 95 Tons with a big volume. FH max 64 tons SLS minimum 95 tons(50% increase) SS (95-150 tons) View Quote I didn’t write the criteria for super heavy classification. But FH meets that criteria and has flown. |
|
Quoted: I believe that was a Trump administration act, to fund a bit of research to look into it again. As much as I hate to say it - because I think it's a great idea, and should never have been abandoned - I think it's a pretty safe assumption that it will be going exactly nowhere, and the funding will NOT be renewed. View Quote Democrats want NERVA so badly they wrote it into HR5666. So yea.. it likely will. |
|
Quoted: The "problem" with SLS is not the tonnage, it's the price per ton, which is completely ridiculous compared to Falcon Heavy. Falcon Heavy costs about $150 million for a launch, whereas SLS will apparently cost about $2000 million for a launch. So you get 50% more payload, but at about 13 times the cost. But if you absolutely need to put one single item into orbit that weighs around 90 tons, then right now the only option available is SLS, because Falcon Heavy cannot do it ... but, boy, are you (the taxpayer) going to pay. View Quote 2 billion if you include the launch vehicle, payload, fuel, crawler time, VAB including the bays used by other companies, the landscaping crew, the janitors, and on and on and on. |
|
SpaceX has come out and stated Super Heavy boosters will be expendable until they get the catch system working. 30 raptors dumped into the ocean every launch until they get everything working lol
|
|
Quoted: SpaceX has come out and stated Super Heavy boosters will be expendable until they get the catch system working. 30 raptors dumped into the ocean every launch until they get everything working lol View Quote SpaceX did blow up a LOT of Falcon 9 cores before they successfully landed one. ... Fortunately, 30 Raptors cost about half of what ONE of the four RS-25 engines on the SLS cost. |
|
|
Quoted: SpaceX has come out and stated Super Heavy boosters will be expendable until they get the catch system working. 30 raptors dumped into the ocean every launch until they get everything working lol View Quote WHERE DID YOU HEAR THAT? Never heard that. I must listen to two hours a day of spacex shit. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: SpaceX did blow up a LOT of Falcon 9 cores before they successfully landed one. ... Fortunately, 30 Raptors cost about half of what ONE of the four RS-25 engines on the SLS cost. Thats at the most what they cost. The RS-25's, or the Raptors? The total cost to NASA for the 24 RS-25 engines is at around $3.5 billion dollars, as far as I can tell - combining the contracts to refurbish existing ones, and the contract to build new ones. That's almost $150 million per engine. It's unclear exactly how much Raptor engines cost to build. SpaceX claims that they are manufacturing them at a cost of about $1 million each these days. Keep in mind that the engine is literally still in development, and so the more they produce and the more they nail down the design, the cheaper they will be to build. SpaceX claims that once the design is completely finalized and production REALLY ramps up, they will be making them for about $250K per engine ... but that's obviously still a ways in the future. Personally, I think it's reasonable to consider their cost per engine to be about $2 million - twice of what they are claiming. So, if Raptors cost $2 million per engine - losing 30 of them (i.e. $60 million) would still less than half the cost of one single RS-25 engine. |
|
They are not going to throw that many raptors away.
They will take the performance hit on the early flights and add the landing gear. |
|
Quoted: The RS-25's, or the Raptors? The total cost to NASA for the 24 RS-25 engines is at around $3.5 billion dollars, as far as I can tell - combining the contracts to refurbish existing ones, and the contract to build new ones. That's almost $150 million per engine. It's unclear exactly how much Raptor engines cost to build. SpaceX claims that they are manufacturing them at a cost of about $1 million each these days. Keep in mind that the engine is literally still in development, and so the more they produce and the more they nail down the design, the cheaper they will be to build. SpaceX claims that once the design is completely finalized and production REALLY ramps up, they will be making them for about $250K per engine ... but that's obviously still a ways in the future. Personally, I think it's reasonable to consider their cost per engine to be about $2 million - twice of what they are claiming. So, if Raptors cost $2 million per engine - losing 30 of them (i.e. $60 million) would still less than half the cost of one single RS-25 engine. View Quote Ugh. For the tenth time. Those RS-25s should be in a museum! |
|
Quoted: The RS-25's, or the Raptors? The total cost to NASA for the 24 RS-25 engines is at around $3.5 billion dollars, as far as I can tell - combining the contracts to refurbish existing ones, and the contract to build new ones. That's almost $150 million per engine. It's unclear exactly how much Raptor engines cost to build. SpaceX claims that they are manufacturing them at a cost of about $1 million each these days. Keep in mind that the engine is literally still in development, and so the more they produce and the more they nail down the design, the cheaper they will be to build. SpaceX claims that once the design is completely finalized and production REALLY ramps up, they will be making them for about $250K per engine ... but that's obviously still a ways in the future. Personally, I think it's reasonable to consider their cost per engine to be about $2 million - twice of what they are claiming. So, if Raptors cost $2 million per engine - losing 30 of them (i.e. $60 million) would still less than half the cost of one single RS-25 engine. View Quote Thanks. I know the cost of the RS25 and the supposed cost of raptor. But the disposable SH booster on Starship? Where is that from.? |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.