How can governmentcucks even compete?

I hope you're referring to the side of the argument I'm on over there, hah

people be dumb

It's 90 million for fully expendable jew bag, and 64 for fully expendable as well.

Only thing you're right about is crewed dragon

>It's 90 million for fully expendable jew bag, and 64 for fully expendable as well.
Wrong and wrong.

>rocket costs N
>cheaper rocket costs N-1
>cheaper rocket is cheaper... but it can also launch less
>which one do you pick?

stop arguing launch cost, all that matters is $/kg to orbit (and fairing size somewhat)

Falcon Heavy is much cheaper when it comes to $/kg

$3000 vs $10,000

there, it's settled then.

I just get all pissy when people argue launch costs w/o adjusting for mass to orbit. Gaaaahh.

The punchline is that the SLS will blow up on the launchpad

it can, just without reusing the boosters since it needs that extra delta v they'd otherwise use to land

It can't.
It cannot support that payload weight structurally.

why should I believe you over the specs that SpX publishes on their own website? Just how ignorant and smug are you?

This has been a well-known fact for more than 3 years.

Why don't they just use these contraptions called "parachutes"?

SLS will be the backbone of space exploration as it's the only rocket that needs single launch to do its job.

Orbital assemblies, refueling, and so on ridiculous things are paper ideas that also inherently endanger missions and lives.

Only the SLS, carefully designed under the watchful eye of the most experienced NASA engineers, is capable of providing what America needs in space.

You're posting ironically, but everything you said is 100% true.

Not disbanded, just their role will change. Instead of having to pay for and maintain the upkeep and infrastructure they can focus on designing missions and putting their money into developing the payloads.

>well known fact
>three years

hand up that three-year old source, buddy. I'll be waiting,

no, it's 100% false. SLS will fly maaaaybe twice. that's it. Then the reusable heavy lifters from BO and SpaceX will kill it's purpose.

Don't be a moron.

I'm not a fan of SpaceX but I don't like the look of this SLS thing
It looks like Shuttle with Soyuz slapped on top of the ET instead of Orbiter. At least look like the dinky can GTFO like Soyuz.
is it still SRB+Hydrogen/LOX combo?

link pls

Imho the only purpose space travel should have is building a huge, preferably kilometres wide telescope there. With such a device, we could get a completely new view of the universe, which might spark some new major scientific advancement. Also, we could observe smaller, rocky exoplanets, that are more earth-like, and potentially find one whose atmosphere composition makes it extremely likely that complex life is living there. If we are lucky, we could even find some direct evidence for an alien civilization.

James Webb is a good start, but we need to go much, much bigger, than this.

All other proposed purposes (colonizing planets that are absoluetely hostile to life, mining Asteroids, etc.) neither hold the potential to answer an existential question of ours (are we alone?) nor to majorly upset our scientific theories of the universe.

Transporting telescopes to space, and satellites into orbit are the only two things rockets should be used for. Everything else is a waste of money.

I love SLS. The important thing about the SLS isn't the cost or the launch capacity, it's the fact that it uses shuttle derived hardware. By using shuttle derived hardware, we can keep the memory and tradition of the space shuttle alive. This will help maintain expertise necessary to keep this tradition alive and prevent important engineering expertise from being lost or disrupted. With reusable rockets, once the rockets up and running the engineers and workers who built the rocket could all lose their jobs. Not so with big expendable rockets like SLS. We need to keep these workers and engineers occupied so that they don't give away the secrets of rocket technology to other nations. This is especially important, because rocket technology has reached it's apex with the SLS.

Could you disperse with the ironic shitposting, is it actually using a fucking ET with vanilla shuttle engines strapped to the bottom and same fucking SRB's?
And this is costing billions to "develop"?

What about building enormous space habitats.

I agree, colonizing inhospitable planets is a huge risk. But if the private sector can do it in a profitable way, I'm down.

many, many, many billions.

7 years ago, the Augustine commission said that NASA's Moon program had to be cancelled, because the development of the necessary heavy lift booster would take 12 years and 36 billion dollars. SpaceX has now done that, on its own dime, in half the time and a twentieth of the cost.

Meanwhile, SLS is simply a jobs program. NASA should have taken the 20 billion allotted for SLS and pumped it into commercial programs, not just for lifters but for habitats, and everything else needed in space.

But alas, congress sets NASA's budget. It's not like NASA can just say "fuck off" to what they're required to spend the money on.

Blame congress.

SLS may cost more but you're getting a better service, plus you're helping support American jobs. SpaceX is owned by an African.

>costs 40+ billion to develope
>with premade, already designed, and tested components, and engines which were developed back in the 1970's
what the fuck are they even doing? why do they need 40 billion dollars to design a rocket made out of parts that were already designed, and kept in storage

what a shitshow
can you answer the other question as well?

2/10.

Should have said Canadian-African immigrant for more emphasis. Also, mention that SpaceX takes away work from US companies like ULA

gotta work on your trolle skills dude

Sea water ruins the engines. SRBs can do it because simpler engine type.

hmm? oh yeah, it's basically just shuttle tech. Keep in mind the principle design has been set in stone for abouuuut a decade or so.

some of the RS-25's are even left over from the shuttle days.

and technically it will be 18 years since Bush proposed it, and $43 billion spent, from the first manned flight of SLS. Two decades and 43 billion. Jeez.

Doing it right ain't cheap. You can do it the quick and cheap way, like Elon is, but it's going to bite you in the ass sooner or later.

>Fast
>Cheap
>Good

Pick one.

That would have no real use. There is no point in housing people in space. Humans should only be in space as much as they absoluetely need to. We are only making things complicated and expensive.

there are a lot of other just 100% stupid decisions too. NASA spent half a billion on reconfiguring the mobile launcher for SLS, but will only use it ONCE (this is planned). Then they need to spend probably another half a billion dollars on a new one.

Again, blame congress. Don't blame nasa.

Humans need all the space. All of it. We will never have enough.

this isn't a fucking fast food restaurant you retard. Stop trying to justify a idiotic waste of money.

>"bite you in the ass sooner or later"

are you twelve? Do you actually think you can condense SpaceX into a single quirp about moving "too fast" when designing a rocket?

>>Fast>Cheap>Good
SpaceX appears to have picked all three.

There's no way to justify SLS when you're literally paying ten times the costs for 10% more capability. After spending, at this point, $12 billion dollars developing it vs $500 million for the FH.

>SpaceX

>fast
no
>cheap
maybe
>good
hell no

I honesty think you're retarded

"maybe" cheap? Just how much is ULA paying you to shill?

"hell no" good? What? Not fast? have you been under a rock for the past fifteen years?

Yes, and FH will fly 5 times max.

Nah, Musk is just breaking dogmas. He took a shit engine, that was way too weak to carry a rocket to space on its own, sticked several of them together, and oh my god it actually worked. Nobody has ever done this before because it was an industry dogma said lots of engines on a rocket dont work. Oh, they do actually, what a surprise.

Same principle btw applies to Tesla. The dogma was to build an electric car as small and energy-efficient as possible to prolong the battery life, and design it in a way that looks "futurisitc", because oh my god its an electric car. Turns out people dont want shitty looking small cars. Elon went the other route by making electric cars as normal looking as possible and prolonged the battery life by simply using way more of them.

He has a pretty straight-forward way of thinking, so yeah there are reasons why he is so successful.

Let me summarize this before I burst a fucking blood vessel.
They have been for past two decades "designing" a rocket, that's using 90% (fucking shitty) parts that existed for last 45 years, and burned 50 billion dollars on it so far.
Correct?
What the fuck did they spend those money on?
Are they at least finished making the actual human rated spacecraft the put on top of it?

lol Fucking moron.

Nigger, they've already had the most expensive parts designed, tested and developed decades ago, this rocket uses the same engines from the shuttle, AND upper stage rockets from the fucking 1960's, this rocket has no excuse for R&D to cost 40+ billion

>It's been well known
where's that well known source buddy?

>Says increasingly nervous ULA executive for the seventh time this year

bruh, merlin isn't shit. It's great.

not 50 billion so far, 43 billion will be spent. Either way its stupid. Just your typical government waste, except this time it's with space stuff so people get extra angry.

Why don't you back up your claims with sources nigger. I'm getting both my figures from SpaceX's website, if you have a different source please post it.

Space Shuttle, when including orbiter refurbishment costs, actually cost about a billion to launch as well. Considering the massively increased capabilities of SLS, it's quite a step up from the Shuttle in terms of cost effectiveness. Still lags far behind Falcon Heavy though.

I think the Falcon Heavy rockets has 3 more launches this year. Not sure after that, but if they have 4 launches per year (probably more) they'll have launched about 16 times before the SLS even gets off the pad. Then there may be delays for both, but the Falcon Heavy has already launched once. Meaning the 2022 schedule for the SLS might get moved along a year or a few years. It really depends on future funding. Especially, since there may even be a new president in office which might change everything.

Then again who knows, since Musk says the BFR might launch as early as next year. I'm sure companies will still charter flights on the other rockets.

Pork.

Pretty much, the only thing that's new about SLS is the orion capsule. The center core is just a stretched Shuttle external tank, the boosters are stretched Shuttle solid rocket booster, and the engines are literally ripped from retired orbiters. As others have stated, SLS is basically a Republican jobs program for Mississippi, Florida, and a couple of other states where the hardware is developed and tested. These congressman want it to be as expensive and slow to develop as possible because it means tons of lucrative aerospace jobs for their states.

Imagine being this fucking oblivious. Spacex is litteraly only allowed to hire us citizens because rocket dev is classed as advanced weapons technology

Slow and steady wins the race.

The tech on SLS may be tried and tested, but that's no reason not to proceed with further testing and whiteboarding. This engine has to carry our best and brightest into space, and we can't afford to cut corners like some do.

This is literally the extent of his "vision". Stick more on it. It's the cheapest, most unimaginative option, and it works temporarily. But it has no scalabilty.

>no scalability

what does that even mean. Elon has stated that BFR will seem like a rowboat compared to future rockets. And BFR by itself is 100x better than S"L"S

>unimaginative
ah yes, the company with plans to complexity colonize mars in the near future, all the while pushing reusability, is unimaginative

Rest in piss nasa

>congress incorrectly ground the hubble mirror

Simplistic, straight-forward approach to solving problems is by far the best approach. His way of thinking is going to carry him far.

Also his talent to play the public and sway people into giving him lots of money so he can finance his high-risk high-reward strategy.

0/10

>government
>competition

Pick one

Is it me or is the SLS poster sounding like a shill? He is posting using buzzwords straight out of a marketing meeting.

PerkinElmer did you twat. Doesn't invalidate my point

buzzwords induce replies, due to their buzzy nature. We're all here for the (you)'s, no?

No shilling here. Just a concerned citizen.

sorry bud but you're a shill alright
>referring to yourself as a "concerned citizen"
lmao

Anyone else excited for this?

youtube.com/watch?v=Q4b1Zolc7kk

>what the fuck are they even doing?
Using that money in black projects like bases on the moon and stuff.

>Eastman Kodak (private company) made a perfect mirror
>fuck you we're going with the lowest bidder government contractor instead

Nasa is garbage, don't even get me started on the Columbia disaster

I wish, but Rickovers don't exist at NASA.

Allen is p. cool; just wonder what he aims to do to keep the prices competitive in a few years

seems p cool, will be interesting to see if it works out

Tell us on the doll where Elon touched you.

SLS and FH complement each other. NASA has no reason to use expendable rockets for resupply missions, yet needs the extra capacity expendable configurations provide for flagship missions.

Both of them work together, it's a mutually beneficial relationship. People taking sides are being completely fucking retarded.

why are they making people ride hydrogen bombs with SRB's again?
It's not like both US and Russia didn't have superheavy lift LOX/Kerosene rockets before, how is this not just fucking congress pork party?

because muh jobs and muh sunk cost

>The punchline is that the SLS will blow up on the launchpad

did they identify that friction stir welding problem that made tanks tear open?

i think it'll work fine, but nobody will care. max viewers will equal that of a falcon 9 cape landing.

at least the loss of the mobile launcher won't matter, lol

>yet needs the extra capacity expendable configurations provide for flagship missions.

What do you mean needs
no "flagship mission" is being built to use any of that capacity

This can't be fucking real. 11 billion in development for fucking 7.6
64 is pretty big [spoiler]For you[/spoiler]

Because it can carry more, that's why. All of NASA is a pork program anyway, and it's not like using SLS invalidates or make using FH harder. In fact the more SLS is used, the larger missions can become and thus have more opportunities for lucrative commercial resupply contracts.

SLS was built to launch lunar and Martian landers, Trump has expressed a desire to do that again after Obama cancelled it in 2011. We will hear more about his plans tomorrow when he reveals his NASA budget plan during the annual State of NASA event.

so fucking what? youre so narrow minded
have you ever stopped to consider that the SLS costs 2 and the falcon heavy costs fucking 90!!!!
who cares if one is billions and the other is millions, 90 is more than 2 you retarded mongoloid, how about you leave of out of your inner shell of goverment deceipts and start living brain life like your own mentality intended

[ ] crash ISS into Earth
[X] sell it for profit

Oh yeah, NASA is in piss all right.

>It's 90 million for fully expendable jew bag, and 64 for fully expendable as well.
if the sls blows up i think it would be ground to literally put nasa on trial and execute them for accute thief of the peoples money

i mean... spending like 30 billion on something that others can do for a couple hundred million is bad enough, but imagine if its all fo rnothing, thats literally a possibility

>tfw literally work for that company in a completely unrelated sector
>they list it on their website as a big accomplishment

>>cheaper rocket costs N-1
>N-1

dont use that word here

I'm nervous about this for Webb.

The fucking douche baguettes better not mess up Ariane 5, and Lockcuck better not mess up the payload

...

the fucking tradition of enginering what?

engineering is not a religion or some other faggy cultural shit, its real thing that solves real irl problems if it doesnt work to solve something concrete that we need right now its literally the most stupid thing you can do to keep paying for it

at least with the n-1 we got cool-ass super-fucking-enournous-gauge synchronized trains

look at em

they're fucking amazing