Space Exploration

Are NASA's future missions and budget justified?

  • It's worth the time and expenditures

    Votes: 218 65.7%

  • Complete waste of money

    Votes: 41 12.3%

  • We need to explore, but not at the current cost

    Votes: 73 22.0%
  • Total voters
    332
#5,491
#5,491
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Click to expand...

as much as I love to hate on government waste there is something that was left out in this comparison.

the launch tower is mobile. like its a crawler, with 4 separate tracks designed to theoretically move payloads in the upright launch configuration safely. that is for more complex of a situation that the stationary SpaceX catch towers. the tolerances for both are crazy, but to achieve that in a mobile platform carrying who knows how many tons takes a LOT more engineering than a stationary tower. been there, done that. but obviously not on anything in regards to space, nasa, or rockets.

not saying the government should be spending 2.7 billion on it, just saying its a really bad, and false, comparison.
 
#5,492
#5,492
I think the comparison illustrates that, instead of simply building a new version of a 50+ year old solution, the issue should be with the initial decision not to revisit the solution. SpaceX also has to move the Starship/Super Heavy from the factory to the launch pad and apparently has done it in a much less expensive way.

But then, given the performance of some of NASA’s contractors, revisiting the solution may have ended up spending the same amount and getting nothing.

It doesn’t really bother me so much anymore as I’m basically of the mindset that this is effectively just NASA paying off the old guard so they can keep them and their lackeys from actively obstructing SpaceX.
 
#5,497
#5,497
LouderVol said:
as much as I love to hate on government waste there is something that was left out in this comparison.

the launch tower is mobile. like its a crawler, with 4 separate tracks designed to theoretically move payloads in the upright launch configuration safely. that is for more complex of a situation that the stationary SpaceX catch towers. the tolerances for both are crazy, but to achieve that in a mobile platform carrying who knows how many tons takes a LOT more engineering than a stationary tower. been there, done that. but obviously not on anything in regards to space, nasa, or rockets.

not saying the government should be spending 2.7 billion on it, just saying its a really bad, and false, comparison.
Click to expand...
The whole idea of a mobile launcher is a 1960s solution to a 2024 problem. It made sense for Apollo/Saturn V. But SpaceX has advanced the launch tower infrastructure to a point where the multibillion mobile launcher is just a anachronism
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top