User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 7:55:04 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just like Starship, but Artemis beat it by a mile and didn't blow up over and over again. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I was scanning past articles and at one time the expected launch date was 2018. Just like Starship, but Artemis beat it by a mile and didn't blow up over and over again. Lol you can’t help yourself. The 2018 launch comment, and this thread, is about Starliner but you drag a Artemis and Starship comparison into this for some inexplicable reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 7:56:44 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, it only has a 14 year head start. And the SpaceX fan bois were calling it a non-starter for years and how Starship was going to beat the pants off it. Welp. It didn't. 99 Raptors on the sea floor and counting, and that's just the boosters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 7:58:03 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol you can’t help yourself. The 2018 launch comment, and this thread, is about Starliner but you drag a Artemis and Starship comparison into this for some inexplicable reason.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 7:58:37 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, it only has a 14 year head start. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Just like Starship, but Artemis beat it by a mile and didn't blow up over and over again. Yeah, it only has a 14 year head start. And bases it's design off of Apollo, Space Shuttle, and the Delta IV and it still took 14 years to put it all together. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 7:58:47 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And the SpaceX fan bois were calling it a non-starter for years and how Starship was going to beat the pants off it. Welp. It didn't. 99 Raptors on the sea floor and counting, and that's just the boosters. Well, you walked right into this one. How many multimillion dollar RS-25s is SLS going to leave on the bottom of the ocean?  Attached File#itbelongsinamuseum |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:08:44 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just like Starship, but Artemis beat it by a mile and didn't blow up over and over again. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I was scanning past articles and at one time the expected launch date was 2018. Just like Starship, but Artemis beat it by a mile and didn't blow up over and over again. You mean SLS (since the Starship HLS is part of the Artemis program)? If you are referring to how much money was spent on a multi billion dollar production cost rocket that can only be launched once every couple of years, is already billions over budget on a cost plus contract, you're being overly generous by saying it beat Starship by a mile. It would take a ~12 mile tall stack of $100 dollar bills to equal the difference in cost ($22b vs $2b) between it and Starship to date. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:12:36 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, you walked right into this one. How many multimillion dollar RS-25s is SLS going to leave on the bottom of the ocean? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/383325/RS-25_jpg-3171312.JPG #itbelongsinamuseum Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And the SpaceX fan bois were calling it a non-starter for years and how Starship was going to beat the pants off it. Welp. It didn't. 99 Raptors on the sea floor and counting, and that's just the boosters. Well, you walked right into this one. How many multimillion dollar RS-25s is SLS going to leave on the bottom of the ocean? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/383325/RS-25_jpg-3171312.JPG #itbelongsinamuseum At least 3.5 Billion worth (24 engines/6 launches) https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-commits-to-future-artemis-missions-with-more-sls-rocket-engines/#:~:text=NASA%2FJude%20Guidry-,NASA%20has%20awarded%20a%20contract%20to%20Aerojet%20Rocketdyne%20of%20Sacramento,is%20valued%20at%20%241.79%20billion |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:16:47 PM EST
[#8]
Boeing sez no snitches on this ride.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:30:51 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just like Starship, but Artemis beat it by a mile and didn't blow up over and over again. Artemis was started in 2010 and supposed to launch in 2015. It finally did in late 2022 only a scant 7 years later. Not bad! It uses old shuttle parts and is well over 2 billion a launch. That's not exactly the win you think it is. The srb's are proven tech and just have an extra segment in them. They also are not reused like they were from the shuttle. The rs25 engine from the shuttle is proven and a great engine, too bad they are one time use from now on. Basically they needed to strap those engines to a tank and crash it in the ocean when it's done. Wtf took so long? Spacex innovates from blowing shit up and perfecting it. Also comparing sls capabilities to starship is dumb. Starship is to be fully reusable. Obviously that's a little tougher than bolting on old shuttle parts. I love all space flight and want sls to be successful but it's a fucking joke of a govt program and it shows from being so much over budget and overdue. Should have just redone the saturn v. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:33:48 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just can't believe an Apollo-esq capsule is still the best Boeing can do since 1970. I know the shuttle had its issues, but it seems crazy that teardrop capsules are the norm still. (I know alot of form follows function, and i am happy that anything is still going to space.. just still). |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:34:30 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh boy. I hope they actually make it. I have zero confidence in NASA or Boeing to do this safely. I think it's more likely things have been pushed to make the two look like they're still capable of something. I hope I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:39:05 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just like Starship, but Artemis beat it by a mile and didn't blow up over and over again.  Starship is no where near full fidelity.. JFC dude.. do you even know the difference between iterative and waterfall testing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:39:48 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bad wiring. Bad software. Bad parachute. Bad valves. It's like the lunar shuttle that almost flew into the sun. But it's all good now. If NASA was remotely not corrupt, Boeing should be flying a second unmanned demo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:40:28 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And the SpaceX fan bois were calling it a non-starter for years and how Starship was going to beat the pants off it. Welp. It didn't. 99 Raptors on the sea floor and counting, and that's just the boosters. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yeah, it only has a 14 year head start. And the SpaceX fan bois were calling it a non-starter for years and how Starship was going to beat the pants off it. Welp. It didn't. 99 Raptors on the sea floor and counting, and that's just the boosters. Starship will beat the hell out of it in short order. Once it's perfected taking the Orion capsule to the moon is gonna be like taking a taxi across country while your buddy is driving a sick ass tour bus and then you're hoping on that tour bus for the last 10 miles of the trip ?? to land |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:40:45 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, you walked right into this one. How many multimillion dollar RS-25s is SLS going to leave on the bottom of the ocean? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/383325/RS-25_jpg-3171312.JPG #itbelongsinamuseum |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:41:13 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, you walked right into this one. How many multimillion dollar RS-25s is SLS going to leave on the bottom of the ocean? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/383325/RS-25_jpg-3171312.JPG #itbelongsinamuseum Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And the SpaceX fan bois were calling it a non-starter for years and how Starship was going to beat the pants off it. Welp. It didn't. 99 Raptors on the sea floor and counting, and that's just the boosters. Well, you walked right into this one. How many multimillion dollar RS-25s is SLS going to leave on the bottom of the ocean? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/383325/RS-25_jpg-3171312.JPG #itbelongsinamuseum Sadly everyone that launches... ?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:41:59 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You mean SLS (since the Starship HLS is part of the Artemis program)? If you are referring to how much money was spent on a multi billion dollar production cost rocket that can only be launched once every couple of years, is already billions over budget on a cost plus contract, you're being overly generous by saying it beat Starship by a mile. It would take a ~12 mile tall stack of $100 dollar bills to equal the difference in cost ($22b vs $2b) between it and Starship to date. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:45:09 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And the SpaceX fan bois were calling it a non-starter for years and how Starship was going to beat the pants off it. Welp. It didn't. 99 Raptors on the sea floor and counting, and that's just the boosters. And not a single one of those 99 raptors had intentions of being recovered. You own a lot of Boeing stock or something ?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:45:13 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Artemis was started in 2010 and supposed to launch in 2015. It finally did in late 2022 only a scant 7 years later. Not bad! It uses old shuttle parts and is well over 2 billion a launch. That's not exactly the win you think it is. The srb's are proven tech and just have an extra segment in them. They also are not reused like they were from the shuttle. The rs25 engine from the shuttle is proven and a great engine, too bad they are one time use from now on. Basically they needed to strap those engines to a tank and crash it in the ocean when it's done. Wtf took so long? Spacex innovates from blowing shit up and perfecting it. Also comparing sls capabilities to starship is dumb. Starship is to be fully reusable. Obviously that's a little tougher than bolting on old shuttle parts. I love all space flight and want sls to be successful but it's a fucking joke of a govt program and it shows from being so much over budget and overdue. Should have just redone the saturn v. Its incredibly obvious how little many making the arguments above know about making this shit work or about simply moving through the development process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:45:27 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Probably under 100 but Raptors arent the priciest things in the world. And the current procedure is to cycle through new Raptor designs as fast as practical. Its nowhere near a fully developed engine while the RS-25... Has gotten better over the years, I'm told. But there's probably not much more that can be squeezed from this particular stone at the moment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:45:47 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: NASA's requirement. Everyones requirement really. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I just can't believe an Apollo-esq capsule is still the best Boeing can do since 1970. I know the shuttle had its issues, but it seems crazy that teardrop capsules are the norm still. (I know alot of form follows function, and i am happy that anything is still going to space.. just still). Gravity and the atmosphere, mostly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:47:49 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Starship will beat the hell out of it in short order. Once it's perfected taking the Orion capsule to the moon is gonna be like taking a taxi across country while your buddy is driving a sick ass tour bus and then you're hoping on that tour bus for the last 10 miles of the trip to land |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:49:54 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SLS is basically ready for prime time and it is obvious you understand very little about why cost plus exists. Cost plus contracts exist because the govt makes shit far too complicated and expensive for companies to innovate with all the bullshit they require. Same reason Kelly Johnson tried to get Ben Rich to cancel the f117 program because he knew the govt bullshit would more than double or triple its developement costs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:53:03 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And the current procedure is to cycle through new Raptor designs as fast as practical. Its nowhere near a fully developed engine while the RS-25... Has gotten better over the years, I'm told. But there's probably not much more that can be squeezed from this particular stone at the moment. Also, putting Europa Clipper on FH was really dumb as now the program will cost even more due to teh much longer travel time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:53:21 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I... don't think you understand the problems many have with not just the timeline for HLS but of the entire idea of the Starship lander.. There are very real problems that need to be solved before SpaceX is ever allowed to land astronauts. Many very smart people badly want something closer to the LEM and would prefer the national team lander that was chosen in the second competition. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Starship will beat the hell out of it in short order. Once it's perfected taking the Orion capsule to the moon is gonna be like taking a taxi across country while your buddy is driving a sick ass tour bus and then you're hoping on that tour bus for the last 10 miles of the trip to land Oh no I do understand that completely and would much rather come down to earth in a capsule until that shit is wellllll proven. But how many times have they landed falcon 9 now? Space flight will always be dangerous |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:54:09 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Gravity and the atmosphere, mostly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 8:55:46 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: har har. No one is building a reentry glide vehicle except Sierra Space with its Dreamchaser. Well you can't land a glide vehicle on Mars or the moon. Starship can... eventually |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:03:08 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cost plus contracts exist because the govt makes shit far too complicated and expensive for companies to innovate with all the bullshit they require. Same reason Kelly Johnson tried to get Ben Rich to cancel the f117 program because he knew the govt bullshit would more than double or triple its developement costs. Tell me, how much should the F117 have cost? You are a company putting in a bid to build the worlds first purpose built stealth aircraft, how are you pricing it? F-22: How much should that have cost? B-2? F-35? The space shuttle? Hell, how much should a completely reusable super heavy launch vehicle cost? How much should AESA have cost? How about Zumwalt? How much should an operational fusion power plant cost? Fact of the matter is you can't tell me because when those things are bid on there is no reference point. Saturn V was over 40 years removed when the design phase of SLS started. No number you give will have any basis in reality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:03:10 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: RS-25 is still one of the best engines in the world. Right now they (RS-25E) are at something like 113% of original rated power output. . Rs-25 been around for 40+ years… Raptor for 10 years.. Raptor now at 145% original rated power… |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:03:39 PM EST
[#30]
If it's Boeing I wouldn't be going
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:07:46 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Its literally impossible to price something that doesnt exist. No super heavy launch vehicle existed in the world after the Apollo program ended. Tell me, how much should the F117 have cost? You are a company putting in a bid to build the worlds first purpose built stealth aircraft, how are you pricing it? F-22: How much should that have cost? B-2? F-35? The space shuttle? Hell, how much should a completely reusable super heavy launch vehicle cost? How much should AESA have cost? How about Zumwalt? How much should an operational fusion power plant cost? Fact of the matter is you can't tell me because when those things are bid on there is no reference point. Saturn V was over 40 years removed when the design phase of SLS started. No number you give will have any basis in reality. It cost them 30 million dollars to build the two have blue prototypes. Basically what Kelly Johnson said it would cost. After that.. when it's top secret and when govt is involved... who the hell knows. Especially just like with the f22 when the govt says we're gonna buy 700 of these fuckers! How much? Then end up buying 1/3rd of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:08:02 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh no I do understand that completely and would much rather come down to earth in a capsule until that shit is wellllll proven. But how many times have they landed falcon 9 now? Space flight will always be dangerous |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:09:49 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well you can't land a glide vehicle on Mars or the moon. Starship can... eventually |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:11:49 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It cost them 30 million dollars to build the two have blue prototypes. Basically what Kelly Johnson said it would cost. After that.. when it's top secret and when govt is involved... who the hell knows. Especially just like with the f22 when the govt says we're gonna buy 700 of these fuckers! How much? Then end up buying 1/3rd of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:14:37 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Scaling rockets doesnt work the way you think it does. Aero, reentry dynamics, engine calculations, size, mass, it all makes things a lot more difficult. Going from medium lift like F9 to something as giant as Starship is a monumental undertaking just to get the thing to launch correctly. Landing it becomes a WHOLE lot harder. Hell, I bet the fuel slosh problems theyre having are due to the shear size of the tanks; a problem the much smaller F9 doesnt have. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Oh no I do understand that completely and would much rather come down to earth in a capsule until that shit is wellllll proven. But how many times have they landed falcon 9 now? Space flight will always be dangerous You don't have any idea what i think. Starship is going to land with the header tanks so that sloshing isn't what you think it will be. Seems like launching starship isn't a problem at all. Even if it's never reusable it will be 1/10t the cost of a sls launch. No one says landing it will be easy but no one ever said landing any rocket would be easy. There's only one company that lands orbital class rockets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:15:56 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SLS is basically ready for prime time and it is obvious you understand very little about why cost plus exists. I'm unfortunately more aware of our govts broken acquisition process that I would like to admit. I was quite certain that the first SLS launch would work, as I am that it will be almost, if not completely, successful at meeting it's performance goals in however many more launches it has. I was just addressing the points of our resident space x hater who has a love of tossing grenades into a conversation, moving goal posts and then disappearing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:19:34 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm unfortunately more aware of our govts broken acquisition process that I would like to admit. I was quite certain that the first SLS launch would work, as I am that it will be almost, if not completely, successful at meeting it's performance goals in however many more launches it has. I was just addressing the points of our resident space x hater who has a love of tossing grenades into a conversation, moving goal posts and then disappearing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: SLS is basically ready for prime time and it is obvious you understand very little about why cost plus exists. I'm unfortunately more aware of our govts broken acquisition process that I would like to admit. I was quite certain that the first SLS launch would work, as I am that it will be almost, if not completely, successful at meeting it's performance goals in however many more launches it has. I was just addressing the points of our resident space x hater who has a love of tossing grenades into a conversation, moving goal posts and then disappearing. Yea for sure I never doubted the sls to work as designed. I mean why shouldn't it? Proven boosters and rs25s. It's just retarded expensive. They put that money into making sure it works the first time. Plus the whole not trying to reuse it thing makes it a "simple" rocket launch |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:25:19 PM EST
[#38]
The interior is hideous. The contrast with SpaceX is night and day. When engineers design an interior:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:26:09 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thats an economy of scale problem not a development problem. Also, thank Obama and the retards in the USAF general staff for that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It cost them 30 million dollars to build the two have blue prototypes. Basically what Kelly Johnson said it would cost. After that.. when it's top secret and when govt is involved... who the hell knows. Especially just like with the f22 when the govt says we're gonna buy 700 of these fuckers! How much? Then end up buying 1/3rd of them. They certainly were retarded for canceling it. But to be fair having 700 f22's is like having 4 hotels on boardwalk when your opponent has 200 dollars left haha. But still I would love to see 700 of those fuckers online |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:39:32 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The interior is hideous. The contrast with SpaceX is night and day. When engineers design an interior: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/274532/1000001297-3171402.jpg Jesus! I don't claim to be any kind of expert on spacecraft ergonomics but that just looks... Wrong. Like its just waiting to take a little trip though an anomaly to someplace where we don't need eyes to see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 10:00:25 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Valves not made by Boeing. Same for the wiring harness tape and chute. The tape flammability is an odd one. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Bad wiring. Bad software. Bad parachute. Bad valves. It's like the lunar shuttle that almost flew into the sun. But it's all good now. If NASA was remotely not corrupt, Boeing should be flying a second unmanned demo. The valves were made by Aerojet Rocketdyne. Certainly not new to the game. Valves made to who's specs is anyone's guess. But Boeing admitted that the valve design was not ideal. And if OFT-1 did not have a software glitch they would have flown astronauts on the ship with valve issues that were discovered on the pad before the launch. Boeing in a statement provided by a spokesperson to Reuters acknowledged for the first time that it ultimately intends to redesign Starliner's valve system to prevent a repeat of the issue that forced last year's test-flight postponement. The Boeing statement said that "we are working on short- and long-term design changes to the valves." Thirteen fuel valves that are part of a propulsion system that helps steer Starliner in space were discovered stuck and unresponsive in the closed position, prompting last year's postponement. Boeing spec'd components and you would expect them to test for the design criteria being met. Yes, tape flammability is out there. There are tried and true products already in use in aerospace that fit the requirements. The parachute connecter links 'soft links' have been around for decades, along with all the other parachute data from NASA etc. Boeing had it's first parachute drop test in 2017 Like it took years of build and testing and 2 test flights and they just figure out the specs. are not adequate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:12:09 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also, putting Europa Clipper on FH was really dumb as now the program will cost even more due to teh much longer travel time. Compared to launching on which rocket? What is the cost of that rocket and the transit time to Jupiter. On Falcon Heavy the travel time is about 5.5 years and the launch cost $178 million US. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:14:41 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Valves not made by Boeing. Same for the wiring harness tape and chute. The tape flammability is an odd one. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Bad wiring. Bad software. Bad parachute. Bad valves. It's like the lunar shuttle that almost flew into the sun. But it's all good now. If NASA was remotely not corrupt, Boeing should be flying a second unmanned demo. And Boeing has no QC? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:22:02 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And Boeing has no QC? Apparently... Just get the part, shove it in there and hopefully it will all work out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:23:14 PM EST
[#45]
Launching on May Day?
I'm sure that's an accident... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:26:41 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Compared to launching on which rocket? What is the cost of that rocket and the transit time to Jupiter. On Falcon Heavy the travel time is about 5.5 years and the launch cost $178 million US. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Also, putting Europa Clipper on FH was really dumb as now the program will cost even more due to teh much longer travel time. Compared to launching on which rocket? What is the cost of that rocket and the transit time to Jupiter. On Falcon Heavy the travel time is about 5.5 years and the launch cost $178 million US. Compared to launching on SLS which is a savings of nearly 2 billion USD depending on which accountant you ask. I realize that SLS is a more powerful rocket than FH. But is it really that much of a difference? And for that matter why does a longer trip time wise mean that it's going to cost significantly more? Do they need to keep the entire science team just twiddling their thumbs while the payload is in transit? Space travel demands patience. Even if we come up with fusion drives and solar powered light sails it's going to take a while for ships, probes and whatnot to move from planet to planet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:29:02 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And Boeing has no QC? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bad wiring. Bad software. Bad parachute. Bad valves. It's like the lunar shuttle that almost flew into the sun. But it's all good now. If NASA was remotely not corrupt, Boeing should be flying a second unmanned demo. And Boeing has no QC? It appears to meet launch deadlines and public perception of the program, QC seems not a significant barrier to keep them from pressing on with the program to try and show progress, even if progress puts the crew at risk in the hope that everything functions as they hoped? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:29:48 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And bases it's design off of Apollo, Space Shuttle, and the Delta IV and it still took 14 years to put it all together. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just like Starship, but Artemis beat it by a mile and didn't blow up over and over again. Yeah, it only has a 14 year head start. And bases it's design off of Apollo, Space Shuttle, and the Delta IV and it still took 14 years to put it all together. Not only basing it's design off of them, but using old stock parts such as engines. I think they even have enough engines for another flight from the old stock. So they didn't even have to make them, just dust them off and make sure they're GTG. Not a single "new" thing was invented.... maybe some more stimulus and pork, that's it. Pretty sure SpaceX has flown men in their capsule many times, how many have flown in Orion or Starliner? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:33:54 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not only basing it's design off of them, but using old stock parts such as engines. I think they even have enough engines for another flight from the old stock. So they didn't even have to make them, just dust them off and make sure they're GTG. Not a single "new" thing was invented.... maybe some more stimulus and pork, that's it. The current stock of RS-25 engines are leftovers from the Shuttle. But since that's not going to be enough for all the planned launches of SLS. They have contracted for a number of new build engines. That is not going to be an easy or cheap thing to do. But the plan is progressing. We could wind up with the silly little scenario where all the Shuttle surplus engines are used, SLS is cancelled and the new build engines all wind up in museums. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:38:24 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hopefully Boeing tightened the door bolts on this one. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
