Zack with NSF yesterday as he and they try to integrate the new info released by SpaceX https://www.youtube.com/live/ADw63JI9Ook?t=1h9m40s
ptfrd
joined 1 year ago
I'm asking you. If you're a follower of his, I suggest you ask him to reupload any deleted videos to a second channel, for the sake of transparency.
This would have been a long time ago, obviously. Reusability is widely accepted these days.
The missing piece here is that Lueders was sidelined by the administration, and only left NASA after that. I guess we can all agree that this was punishment for her awarding the contract to SpaceX, and the only question is whether she deserved that punishment.
I don't know. I don't even know if the claims are true. But having an idea of your maximum price, and only telling any bidders what that is if they are a little bit over, doesn't seem to me like the kind of thing that would be an uncommon occurrence in government procurement.
My weak guess is that, prior to this year at least, SpaceX has been operating at a vastly lower level than Old Space in terms of dubious business practices, and the baby steps they took in that direction were expertly countered by the masters of the art, and that's why we're even talking about this level of detail in the only (?) contract that SpaceX contentiously won, and not the dozens they contentiously lost.
Are you saying that the person who was director of NASA's HLS program, at the time it granted a contract to SpaceX, had previously worked at SpaceX?
but their goals seem easy in comparison, especially if you consider the tech we have now vs the 60’s
I'd say their goals seem much harder in an absolute sense, but perhaps roughly the same in comparison to the technology level.
They really do seem to be trying to create a Mars colonisation ship. Capable of transporting large amounts of mass for less money than it costs to transport small amounts of mass with existing rockets.
My response to Destin is that Starship is clearly not optimal for another 'flags and footprints' mission to the Moon, but is such a paradigm shift that even if doing such a mission as a 'side project', it could still very easily be better than all the alternatives. And if, like me, you care more about a permanent presence on the Moon, the case for Starship becomes even stronger.
massive, obvious insider dealing
Is this an accusation pertaining to SpaceX?
Thunderfoot
The guy who had a whole video about how Falcon 9 reusability would never work, and then quietly deleted it when proved badly wrong?
I'd stick with Destin if I were you ...
If you're reading this, Will, there are some typos:
and a then battery that needed replacement
will won’t be ready [Freudian slip, mate? ;) ]
Good point. I wasn't really thinking what i meant by "the critical path". I was probably assuming the path to a vehicle & system working (at least qualitatively) as designed - including full reusability.
But now that I think about it, probably the thing that matters most to SpaceX is launching at least one ship during the next Mars transfer window, in order to test their Martian EDL approach. (The critical path to making life multi-planetary?) And for that I guess booster reuse is much(?) more important than ship reuse. Or to put it another way, currently for Starship, Mars EDL is the main goal, and Earth EDL only matters to the extent it helps with that goal.
I should've realized this without your question, because after Flight 4 I decided that it was now likely they would be ready by early 2027 - even if they did struggle with reusability. (I think even after Flight 3 we had grounds to reach this conclusion.)
So I now say that this decision is probably not a mistake.
N.B. When I say I think they'll be ready by early 2027, I mean from an engineering PoV. I'm excluding politics and such. What if a NASA science team decides they don't want Starship to contaminate Mars, and Trump doesn't feel like helping Musk overturn that decision?
completely ignored
Obviously that's an exaggeration.
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57950149
- https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4227/1
- https://indianalawreview.com/2023/09/25/one-giant-leap-space-tourists-as-astronauts-an-analysis-of-the-outer-space-treaty-and-rescue-agreement-using-the-vienna-conventions-treaty-interpretation-method/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/spaceflight/comments/oo1jli/can_we_call_them_astrotourists_instead_of/
It says quite a lot
Does it? What if a thorough media analysis were to show that the level of discussion of this topic is roughly in proportion to the level of coverage of each mission?
Or that it is related to the extent to which these people are getting described as astronauts? For example, Shatner got a decent amount of coverage, but my guess is that fewer than half of the articles about his trip actually described him as an astronaut. E.g. NPR
Is Katy Perry now the most famous person to have ever been to outer space? Better known than Neil Armstrong is/was?
You could at least find out what his response might be. If he outright lies, someone might come forward and 'testify' to that fact.
No, I asked a question.
I'm increasingly confident that Thunderfoot is indeed the guy about whom I've heard that allegation, but since I don't have proof, it has to remain as a question