With the 35 billion dollars that went into this orange piece of shit we could have paid for 350 Falcon Heavy flights to...

With the 35 billion dollars that went into this orange piece of shit we could have paid for 350 Falcon Heavy flights to Mars. How does that make you feel?

Other urls found in this thread:

nasaeclips.arc.nasa.gov/video/realworld/archive-real-world-tools-for-construction-nasas-lunar-crane
nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2012_phaseII_fellows_khoshnevis.html
nasa.gov/exploration/technology/space_exploration_vehicle/index.html
nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_748.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Sad. Pls no bully.

ashamed to be an american

dumbass, nasa has to report costs for paying the scientists. the project altogether cost 2 bil, not just the rocket. tesla doesnt have to report labor costs in the cost of the rocket. the rockets cost the fucking same. (actually falcon heavy was a bit cheaper, its smaller.)

USA should be building like 10 new spaceports to lease them to SpaceX for profit.

If it were currently human rated and had a fucking spaceship to transfer people, it'd be ok.

Muh Terrorists and Muh Diversity, killed NASA.

Hey, at least we've got awesome killing drones and a constant fusillade of racial tension at the expense of NASA.

It is still the most capable rocket and a requirement for doing meaningful science in space.

...

>most capable rocket
>not even finished yet
>competition already flown theirs and recovered 2 of the 3 cores.
Why are stupid allowed to live?

NASA and the government disagree.

I'd rather trust experts than you.

>experts
>trusting a company to design a rocket who designed a plane that reversed it's controls randomly in the air
I'd rather trust the rocketman sending his car on a million years voyage

It's easier to develop rockets later.

Because then SpaceX would just get a total monopoly and charge the same price. You think Musk would be any different than ULA if he got the chance to do what they did? At any rate, SLS Block II is still bigger than FH and SpaceX has yet to make the BFR. Even if they did make the BFR, it'd come years after SLSBII is online. Therefore, work on SLS will continue. Or maybe not, perhaps Trump will kill SLS like Obama killed Ares I, which allowed SpaceX enough space to enter the market in the first place.

You're not educated on this subject, so shut your mouth.

Also, it's not like SLS and FH actually compete against each other. NASA can use both, and is planning to do so as they have been since Obama killed Ares I in 2010. So this situation is not mutually exclusive, both public government and private enterprise can work together for a greater purpose. Being a fanboy for either is stupid and regressive.

Except that Falcon Heavy is here, now, and is mostly reusable, while everything but the payload on the SLS is thrown away.

One Falcon Heavy and a few second stages could launch just about everything on the books for the SLS, before the SLS even flies.

>while everything but the payload on the SLS is thrown away.

And? That's not an insignificant point. SLS was built to put an Orion capsule, lunar transfer stage and an Altair lander into orbit. FH isn't being designed to do that, although it's still great regardless.

>One Falcon Heavy and a few second stages could launch just about everything on the books for the SLS, before the SLS even flies.

Exactly, just like how one Space Shuttle and a few second stages could launch just about everything on the books for the SLS, before the SLS even flies. Just like how Russia was planning on doing a manned lunar mission using multiple Soyuz launches, which has never happened in Soyuz's entire 50-year long existence.

The center core was a test design, and almost landed. It only needs a few adjustments in the design to become reusable. SpaceX is already developing a method to capture the fairings and the second stage landing is already in the books for R&D.
SLS is BTFO before it reached the first test phase.

why don't they focus on improving light infrastructure for a colony since their budget is so shit

SLS can carry more payload than FH, so no it's not. But again, it's not like they exist exclusive of each other. This *might* be true from a financial standpoint, but not really because if budget hawks had their way America wouldn't have a manned space program and we'd use Minotaurs for all launches.

that's what NASA has spent their time doing for the past decade, have you ever actually read their website

Underrated post

>watch our webcast as two students from Berkeley have discovered a revolutionary way to build a colony in their dorm yard, this could be important as we gear up for Mars in the 2040s-2050s.
NASA hasn't done jack the past decade except cancelling the $pace $huttle

SLS' problem is the conservatives are starving NASA's budget.

If the needed funding was provided nobody would even bother to look at other rockets.

That's a nice delusion. I hope you don't get into shock when you wake up.

If you think this is sad, that just think about how much stuff we could have put into space if the US government never abandoned the Saturn V. It had a production and launch cost of around 600 million in today's dollars. The space shuttle program and all the developments that followed had a combined cost of roughly 300 billion. If we spent that money on Saturn 5 launches (roughly 600 million each) we could habe launched them 500 times. That's 2500 tons of payload to the moon, or half that to Mars. We would have a large Moon base, a Mars colony, several stations in outer space, and a space-based ICBM-shield.

>being this fucking retarded

nasaeclips.arc.nasa.gov/video/realworld/archive-real-world-tools-for-construction-nasas-lunar-crane

NASA spent most of the 90s and 2000s doing this because they expected a lunar program by the late 10s. Obama cancelled it. All the stuff in Moonbase Alpha are analogues to real-world things studied if not also constructed. Again, all of this was wiped away in 2010 because neither Obama nor Congress saw a need for it.

some other links

nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2012_phaseII_fellows_khoshnevis.html

nasa.gov/exploration/technology/space_exploration_vehicle/index.html

It hurts

>pic is the equivalent of a Berkeley science lab on a field
Bullshit. NASA is a complacent, bloated jobs program that has been misusing whatever funds it gets on the disastrous space shuttle and downright boring ISS.

nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_748.html

I'd post more from the NASA NTRS however:

>Error: Our system thinks your post is spam. Please reformat and try again.

Precisely because it would have worked it was killed. Courtesy of retards, soviet spies, and the times.

>>pic is the equivalent of a Berkeley science lab on a field

Again, you're being fucking retarded and not reading the links. If you can't even fuck yourself to do that, why are you posting? You're not doing anything productive. This isn't some kids doing a "moonbase simulation" in a tent, it's NASA engineers working within NASA to develop materials they expect to be used on missions at some point in the future. They're building NASA's back catalog of things they need for manned missions, this is the same back catalog companies like SpaceX will inevitably pull from too.

NASA wants half a trillion to send a man on Mars.
They are a joke.

No, it was killed because it was a huge waste of equipment. It wasn't reusable, half the government opposed it on tax grounds and the other half opposed it because it was a subsidy to the military-industrial complex (who couldn't even win a war in southeast asia). The STS was seen as a cheaper alternative, at a time when people expected the technology behind it to get better. It didn't, but the people who had made the decisions were already dead by then. And an entire generation grew up not wanting or caring about spaceflight, because why would they care about something that's in their history books?

Also Soviet spies copied the shuttle directly via Buran, which never flew and was a huge waste of money for the SU government. However this was forgotten because the SU does not exist anymore.

Hahaha kid a few inflatable tents and a trolley does not a moon base make. NASA is incapable of anything, especially planning a Moonbase conveniently in the "late tens" to fit your narrative.

$500 billion for the largest endeavor in human history (so far) is cheap when the US government is spending $700 billion per year to sustain Medicare alone. Also, $500 billion is only $10 billion per year across ten years, or $1 billion per year across fifty. It's not unreasonable when one looks at the broader picture.

Fuck off, Elon fanboy.

Nah, it was killed because we didn't know that the Saturn V is the best we can do. And that's kind of understandable, I mean who would have though the first big rocket we build is also going to be the best one we will ever build? In hindisght, it was a huge mistake to cancel it, but at the time it made sense.

oh, is that so?

As pic related perfectly demonstrates, you have no clue what you're talking about. I'm not even claiming NASA is infallible or competent, but they've been working on things in the background while all their important things flail around due to a lack of funding.

>bunch of creepy boomers wasting money on trolleys in the desert
>"building a foundation for a Lunar base in the 2010s"
>wanting a lunar base
>spending billions and fifteen years on a rocket that's had one test flight and doesn't even begin to be ready to send humans to Mars
Shut up, shill.

Irrelevant.
The horrifying pricetag did what it was supposed to - make Mars program look unrealistic and impossible, giving NASA and their contractor friends the much desired peace and tax payer money.
Luckily, they aren't an all powerful monopoly and there still hope for manned space flight.

>Also Soviet spies copied the shuttle directly via Buran
No. They heavily drew from public (and probably classified) design data of the shuttle, but it was anything but a copy. The Energija could launch conventional payloads instead of the buran orbiter and was designed with a clear and feasible upgrade path as superheavy launcher. If flew twice, once with the Buran orbiter, once with Polyus, and performed without any serious malfunctions. If you want to label this as a huge waste of money so are all other superheavy launchers. That the soviet union collapsed before they could make use of its capacity isn't a fault of the design.

>>bunch of creepy boomers wasting money on trolleys in the desert

So you think the apollo program was worthless then? This is the Apollo's Lunar Landing Research Vehicle, which trained pilots in proper lunar landing techniques. It's an invaluable piece of research equipment, one which makes all manned extraterrestrial exploration practically feasible.

Are you arguing against that now too? Because this is what SpaceX aims to do.

There might be certain spill-overs, but all in all NASA is extremely wasteful with its ressources. That is mainly down to constantly changing goals and so on. Elon Musk said he is happy he didn't go public with SpaceX, because equity holders would have fucked up the plans and SpaceX couldn't have worked as efficiently. Now imagine you have a divided US government as your owner instead of public equity. At the end of the day, Elon Musk has a goal since he founded Space X in the early 2000s, and that is to build a colony on Mars. Everything he does is party of reaching the ultimate goal. This is why he is so quick and efficient at reaching it. NASA though doesn't have any long-term goals, because they are depended on policy makers. This is why the Agency always is going to burn more money than a Falcon Heavy burns LOX.

Would you stop shifting the goalpost? Apollo was fine.

> They heavily drew from public (and probably classified) design data of the shuttle

I stopped reading there. The STS's entire configuration was publicly accessible and NASA themselves believe they mailed STS's plans to the Soviets which was how they got the idea. Nothing about it was classified because nothing inside NASA is classified, because that is not NASA's job. Classified jobs go to the Air Force, and always have. This is why they had the X-20 and X-37 while NASA never ever did.

I'm not shifting any goalpost. I'm just posting "a bunch of creepy boomers wasting money on trolleys in the desert". I'm posting about the on-the-ground research NASA does to support their spaceflight endeavors, which you think is "the equivalent of a Berkeley science lab on a field".

so i was wrong about that and they had the entire STS plans. Doesn't make any difference for my post.

Yes it does, because it demonstrates that you're not well read on the subject.

The NASA stopped being efficient post-Saturn V, that is known and is really sad it is true, but it is.

If private space enterprise would have started in the 70s instead of the 2000s, we would have already been on Mars somewhen during the 90s.

>The NASA stopped being efficient post-Saturn V, that is known and is really sad it is true, but it is.

They were never efficient, ffs the AF was going to field their own space shuttle by 1970 but canned the project when they heard that NASA wanted a shuttle too. And thus is how we got STS's borked design.

>If private space enterprise would have started in the 70s instead of the 2000s, we would have already been on Mars somewhen during the 90s.

They did, who do you think built the Shuttle? Rockwell International (now Boeing). Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

that's rich coming from the guy that claimed the vehicle he's shitting on never flew

no missions = no functionality

Again, Russia moved back to Soyuz. Russia wouldn't even build MAKS.

>They were never efficient

They weren't. The Saturn V's development was a mess and only happened because Congress threw more money at it. Such is the nature of government megaprojects.

>Elon Musk has a goal since he founded Space X in the early 2000s, and that is to build a colony on Mars.

BUt that is not possible. Humans cannot live in radioactive cold wasteland with no breathable air and covered in poisonous dust.

Blue origin is kind of flying under the radar. That's because unlike Musk's SpaceX, they are not in need of finding capital and can skip the whole publicity work. They already re-used a rocket 5 times and all their rockets launched and landed successfully. They seem to be much more reliable, than SpaceX. Despite yesterday's flight being a success reliability is going to break SpaceX's neck.

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand the Falcon Heavy. The implications are extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the implications will go over a typical spectator’s head. There’s also the mission’s nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into its characterisation- its personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these missions, to realise that they’re not just cool- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Elon Musk truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the humour in Elon’s existential catchphrase “Wubba Lubba Dub Dub,” which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev’s Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Elon’s genius wit unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools.. how I pity them.

And yes, by the way, i DO have a SpaceX tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It’s for the ladies’ eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they’re within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

russians moved back to eating tree bark in the 90s and the US paid roscosmos to build a few ISS modules so the scientists don't go job shopping in other nations. The fraction of a collapsed state not being able to fund significant parts of its space program while the rest of the country is barely being held together on a shoestring budget says absolutely nothing about the capabilities of the cancelled projects.

also if you insist on nitpicking you should stop moving the goalposts, your initial post clearly stated it never flew.

Seeing a ton of unwarranted SpaceX hate lately desu. Probably just losers jealous of Papa Elon. Stay mad that he’s universally loved and doing what you can only fantasize over kiddos. Oh, and even if you ever do accomplish anything you’ll still just be “the next Elon Musk”

I heard he wants to move the American elites to Mars and then nuke the subhumans from orbit to create utopia.

He’s like real life Galt.

Based. Anyone who would disagree is a certified soyboy.

This!

Daily reminder Blue Origin's BE-4 are way more powerful and reliable than SpaceX's Merlin engines and will be Musk's downfall.

Raptor is in development.

BE-4 is already ready and is being sold to anyone who pays the price. I bet SpaceX sooner or later will buy them, too.

I need to finish this book, baka.
Best thomas the tank engine fanfic ever.

>SpaceX buying engines from Jeff who?
omega fucking kek.

...

The space race between SpaceX and Blue Origin will be much like the race between Soviet Union and the US. SpaceX might have a head start and look like its winning, but Blue Origin will soon come from behind and leave Musk-y boy in shambles. But hey Elon, at least you still have your cute litte e-cars to play with, so it's not all bad!

I do not want to shit on Blue Origin or anything... but they kinda can't compete with SpaceX at all even in reliability. The f9 boosters are some tough motherfuckers, they have been re-used more times than the little BO rocket.

>NASA
>not Congresses who wants the shuttle mo eyes to keep rolling into their districts

So after spaceX is dead the spaceprogram will grind to a halt again.
pls no

Like they will admit wasting 30 billion $.

>SpaceX might have a head start and look like its winning, but Blue Origin will soon come from behind and leave Musk-y boy in shambles.

spacex:
enthusiastic people
paying customers
production tech

blue origin:
infinite money
will probably eventually buy out their sole customer ULA

FH is a test. Musk said many times they would cancel it if not for all the $ put into it already. BFR will be much better and absolutely crush SLS at fraction of the cost.

SLS Block I tests will use the main engines taken from the surviving Shuttles and dump them into the sea. I think there's still no concrete plan to build more of those extremely completo and finicky engines and that weren't meant to be expendable.

Orion was built dorm Constellation and the Ares. It's too heavy to take it further than the moon with SLS

BFR can fly all day everyday that won't change the state of the SLS program. Anyone who cancels it will instantly have thousands of workers furious and a political shitstorm to deal with.

Developing new engines is not cost effective and will produce even further delays.

In addition, it was written in law, mostly by the republicans, that the SLS utilize as much legacy hardware as possible.

If you wish to blame someone don't point at NASA.

More like:

SpaceX:

-Meme-company that is heavily depended on government subsidies and doing pathetic PR to try and cash in on the hype.

- led by a chubby beta Nu-Male

Blue Origin

- was founded before SpaceX, which is essentially a copy of Blue Origin
- entirely self-financed
- is not depended on meme-references to gather clicks from redditors
- has build the best rocket engine ever designed (BE-4)
- is networked with all the big players in the industry and will dominate the market
- is led by richest man on earth alpha Jeff

That's my point. NASA has become a bloated corpse made to keep the pork coming to the shuttle contractors. Do you think NASA wants SLS?
It's tragic, really what the government has let NASA become.

>is led by richest man on earth alpha Jeff
>Jeff
>alpha
When will they learn?

Shit son if I had spent that much money on a rocket I'd say it could suck your dick too if it meant not losing my job for wasting money

NASA died in the 70's with the space shuttle, but even the Apollo program was a pile of shit

Why exactly is it so relevant to be able to put large payloads into space? Why not just put several smaller ones there and assemble in Space, or on Mars/Moon?

It seems to me like space exploration is extremely hindered by all this development time for big rockets. For example the Falcon Heavy can launch 15 tons into outer space for roughly 100 million, right? Why not stop it there with the rocket development? You could put 150 tons to moon for 1 billion... That's surely enough for a moon base? Why not build the moon base now?

They started before SpaceX
They have launched no payloads to suborbit or orbit
And they are nowhere near doing anything in orbit yet

Blue Origin is way fucking behind
In fact it is probably likely that they will never become a real orbital company

because assembling shit in space is hard, mainly because we don't have the capability do have people work there.

Imagine if instead of the space shuttle we'd have used the Saturn V to build a LEO drydock.

That is the situation currently, But when BFR is flying regularly, there is a point when it becomes obvious that SLS is nothing more than an obsolete jobs program. A political shitstorm could happen if it is NOT cancelled.

15 tons is a bit too low, however you are correct that using distributed launch is the future.

They are way ahead in their development of a lm-lox engine (BE-4), which are basically next-gen rocket engines. They are so far with it that NASA and ULA both are buying these enginges from them. Depending on how SpaceX is doing with Raptor, they might fall behind Blue Origin in a few years.

Also, Blue Origin has a different business philosophy. SpaceX has a high-risk high-reward approach where launch failures are accepted in order to quickly develop the rockets. Blue Origin wants everything to go right at first try. While there are plenty of failed launches and landings from SpaceX, no such thing exists for Blue Origin. So far, they are producing much more reliable rockets. Combine this with the fact that they are having an edge over SpaceX in terms of next-generations engines, they might overtake the market in the next decade.

tasty pasta

SpaceX had more failures because they had a lot more launches. There is no such thing as 100% reliable and working right the first time. Anyone saying such things is a liar and a shill.

>much more reliable rockets
not hard considering they are only doing suborbital tests yet. As for the engine, the soviet NK33 achieved higher chamber pressures in a closed cycle design with oxidizer (!) rich preburner almost 5 decades ago. Neither BE4 nor Raptor should hit any major setbacks considering the way to such designs has been paved long ago. These engines are only next generation because there was no need for methane fueled craft earlier, not because it is somehow harder than doing so for the fuel combinations we have been using.

>dumbass, nasa has to report costs for paying the scientists. the project altogether cost 2 bil, not just the rocket. tesla doesnt have to report labor costs in the cost of the rocket. the rockets cost the fucking same. (actually falcon heavy was a bit cheaper, its smaller.)
nopey nope, 35 billion dollars is the total amount of money spent specifically on the sls project. It does not cover expenses for other stuff.

Im sorry but the following is objectively true:

The american people has spent 35.000.000.000 dollars in a project that created literally nothing of value, neither in knowledge or tangible stuff

>NASA and the government disagree.
>I'd rather trust experts than you.

HAHAHAHAHA oh god
so an "expert" comes in and tells you to give him all of his money even when hes clearly just stealing it, and because hes an "expert" youll trust him??
HAHAHHAHAHA i looove when i meet an idiotic person, makes me remember how is it that im way ahead of everyone else. Seriously, i really hope you're trolling or just like 14 years old because if not boy are you cannon fodder for con artists

That's not true though. SpaceX definetely had a lot of failed launches. Had NASA produced so many while developing a rocket, the project would have gotten surely shut down.

The main difference between Blue Origin and SpaceX is that Blue Origin doesn't need to produce cash flows, because they have the infinite money supplier that is Jeff Bezos. SpaceX though does need to produce cash flow, because while Musk is rich, he is not 100 billion dollars rich, and basically the Falcon 9 served no purpose than to produce money in order to have funds for the development of the Raptor engine and the BFR, which is the real deal.

Blue origin basically skipped all that and concentrated directly on developing a next-gen engine. Especially because they knew that, like with SpaceX, the first few tries are going to fail, anyways.

This is indeed a disadvantage in sense of them not being as experienced with orbital launches as SpaceX, but it is an advantage in the sense that they hadn't to be bothered with developing a rocket that is going to be completely irrelevant 10 years from now (Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 heavy).

Now if you look at SpaceX Raptor engine, it is based on the assumption that they can achieve something that the Russians are not capable of doing in decades of their research, and that is creating a chamber pressure of >300 bars. And even if they succeed, this will put them still behind BE-4 power-wise. To surpass them, they would need to create a chamber pressure of >350 bars. That is very ambitious, to say the least.

Blue origin's BE-4 is largely already largely functional and, as is blue origins philosophy, is being prioritized to be as reliable as possible, and not as powerful as possible. Despite this, it will still be more powerful than the first raptor engines, even if they achieve a 300 bar chamber pressure.

>Also, it's not like SLS and FH actually compete against each other.

Yes they fucking do. SLS block 1(which is the only one that well MAYBE see in the next 5 years if they hurry up production) has LESS capacity than the already functioning tried and tested Falcon heavy rocket. Using the SLS is gonna cost 35.000.000.000 to the american people, using the falcon will cost literally less than 175 times that(this is worst case scenario expendable if it is reusable which all points that it will be, it will be many times cheaper and also totally revolutionize space access)

Its like someone coming to you and say
HEY WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY 101249801290890214980421 dollars to ride across the atlantic in a wooden raft or would you rather go with this other guy who will charge you 1000 to go on a luxury cruiser.

its an objective choice where no opinion is possible, if you know the information spacex is the only logical choice, by far. Anything else is the kind of ignorance that only people without a college education have or youre just defending it because you get money from the corrupt military industrila corruption

It's another episode of SpaceX fanboys posting numbers out of ass.