Uh wrong on multiple points. The shuttle required massive refurbishment after each flight making it ridiculously expensive.
Second this first rockets are getting lots of testing and refurbishment for obvious reason. They are making sure to see what works and what could be an issue. As they get more testing they will owner the turnaround and work times more and more. It’s a methodical process.
So the hype is real. What SpaceX is doing is unprecedented and New Sheppard is not in the same class of vehicle. People really need to stop comparing the two.
That’s just what the Space Shuttle engineers said circa 1985. It isn’t a straight line from here to there. Or, to quote engineers since the dawn of the space age, space is hard.
SpaceX is the Android/Atari of rocket platforms. Vocal, supportive, optimistic fans. :)
New Shepard isn’t the same class as Falcon 9, but New Glenn will be comparable and possibly have an even larger payload than Falcon Heavy. So while SpaceX p0wns private orbital launches right now, it’s gonna be really interesting a few years. New Glenn hasn’t flown yet, but it isn’t vaporware – I saw the test engines at Blue Origin HQ months ago.
I’m delighted that we have two super smart billionaires with a passion for this. So I’m not going to denigrate Blue Origin, I think the market is big enough for more two innovative companies. Blue Origin is focused on the tourist market, as somebody who has a low 6 digit figure targeted for my ultimate bucket list item, (I really want an orbital flight) I’m rooting for them.
On the other hand as far as advancing science, and best satisfying my desire to see us explore Mars, SpaceX has captured my heart.
So given that Elon is literally shooting for beyond the moon, I’m willing to forgive his over-optimistic schedules and budgets and cut the man a lot of slack.
Lol SpaceX has proven endless doubters wrong again and again. They can’t reliably land a first stage back because they said it’s too hard…well they can’t relaunch them…welll they can’t. SpaceX has already completely upended the worldwide launch business. Continue to doubt and look foolish if you want.
Huh do you have any clue? SpaceX is already one of the dominant commercials launchers in the world and they are now taking government contracts from ULA. You really are showing ignorance on this subject man.
Man, I thought this place was a refuge from the SpaceX fanboyism, and resultant putdowns and negativity.
I wish Musk every success, and I don’t doubt he’ll eventually deliver on most of his promises. As far as reusability goes, they haven’t really shown us all that much yet. For the moment, they’re the second group to launch an orbital vehicle after a long refurbishment. No more, no less.
They say full, easy reusability is coming soon. I say Falcon Heavy has been six months away for five years, and that SpaceX has a history of overpromising on dates. They themselves admit that the boosters currently in service are not easily reusable, and they have a list of design changes they plan to make for Falcon 9 Block 5 to get closer to their endgame. When they’re done, I’ll watch the steam and cheer with everyone else. Until then, they really don’t need random people on the internet riding to their defense at the mildest perceived slight.
Here is a helpful page showing the budget of NASA over the years. In case you read something saying the budget was “deauthorized” or drastically cut sometime in the recent past.
Wow, yeah, that story is purely fake news. Admittedly they are technically correct that it’s the first reauthorization funding statement in 7 years, but that doesn’t mean anything. NASA’s budget in 2016 was $19.3 billion and $19.0 billion in 2017 (which was, again, from Obama’s budget signature).
Please research what a “NASA Authorization Bill” actually does. The answer is “nothing”. And Obama signed the last one to reach his desk, which was in 2010. Every Authorization bill since then wasn’t able to make it through the Senate…because it didn’t need to. The budget gives NASA money. The Authorization Bills give suggestions and direction on how that money can be spent. It doesn’t give a penny to NASA, nor does it take any away.
Regarding this NBC News article that might make you think Obama had cut funding for NASA in 2011/2012:
The House Appropriations Committee aims to enact big spending cuts that would reduce NASA’s proposed $19 billion budget for 2011 by $578 million as part of a wider plan to trim $100 billion from the national budget, according to Space News. That would be a $303 million drop from the previous year.
The CR provides funding above fiscal year 2010 levels for National Institute of Standards and
Technology research and manufacturing programs, as well as critical FBI national security and
prisons/detention requirements. Justice Department appropriations are reduced by $946 million
below fiscal year 2010, with significant reductions to grant and construction programs, and
Commerce Department appropriations are cut by $6.5 billion below fiscal year 2010. The bill
also includes $18.5 billion for NASA and fully funds the newly authorized exploration program.
If you read the article, you’ll see this:
The Obama administration has announced its 2012 budget request, which if approved would freeze spending for NASA and other federal agencies at 2010 levels for the next fiscal year.
The 2012 budget request allocates $18.7 billion for NASA, the same amount the agency received in 2010. That’s about $300 million less than NASA was alloted in the president’s 2011 budget request.
You might note that 18.7 is a bigger number than 18.5. Thanks, Obama!
That’s why. First, your post wasn’t an opinion.Second, you put misinformed statements out there and then get pissed when people call you on them. People respond to you with links and real information and your response is “libtards”.
You took it to P&R on your first post. Then in the response you link to an NBC article that not only doesn’t make your point, it actually disputes it. And then get mad at the people responding?
What the heck? First @Jason_Becker responds using an argumentative tone more appropriate for YouTube comments than Quarter to Three… If you knew me, to accuse me of ignorance about space is hilarious. All I said was that SpaceX currently has to rebuild the launchers after use, just like the Shuttle. That’s absolutely true. I never denied that they’ll get better/faster at it. I assume once they’ve reflown a few a few times they’ll be able to reduce rebuilds/inspections to specific components that show wear/damage after flight.
Giving credit to Blue Origin for its accomplishments and plans in no way minimizes the accomplishments and potential for SpaceX. There’s room in the market for both and more. To think there has to be a “winner” or that you have to denigrate the one that’s not your favorite is pure Internet fanboyism.
And now this political BS about the budget.
This is QT3, people. Let’s be sane adults here. Or discuss in P&R, where sanity is optional.
Beautiful animation detailing Cassini’s 13 year mission studying Saturn and it’s moons before it takes a plunge into Saturn’s atmosphere. Hard to believe this thing was launched nearly 20 years ago.
That’s been a great mission. I remember its incredibly controversial beginning, where people were concerned that the 70-some pounds plutonium on board that fueled its RTG would poison Earth either at an accident in its 1997 launch or when it returned for a gravity slingshot in '99.
And now we’re irradiating Saturn! Hope the Saturnians don’t mind.
But it was a great little probe that gave us an enormous amount of science. I don’t think we ever knew about Saturn’s North Polar Hexagon until Cassini flew by, and all the cool stuff about Saturn’s moons. The Huygens lander on Titan is the farthest we’ve ever landed anything.
