Michel Van said:but would NASA finance such expensive multi billion dollar mission like sample return ?
or just order a SpaceX Falcon heavy with 50 tons payload for same mission ?
blackstar said:Michel Van said:but would NASA finance such expensive multi billion dollar mission like sample return ?
or just order a SpaceX Falcon heavy with 50 tons payload for same mission ?
The mission will cost a lot of money regardless of the rocket.
People seem to have this mistaken impression that it's all about the rockets. It's not. Launch is a small part of any mission's cost. If you cannot afford the payload, it does not matter what the rocket costs.
fredymac said:Launch costs should be a small part of the total program cost. At $1Billion (or more) per launch, the SLS becomes an issue for any program with a budget below something like the ISS. The same dynamics which resulted in shuttle launches costing so much are at play so there is little hope of price drops over time.
merriman said:Looking at the proposed hardware (I'm a child of the Mercury era) for the return-to-moon mission proposal reminds me that there's nothing new here: big, expensive throw-away hardware.
The SLS program is aimed at two objectives: to toss SSME's into the Atlantic, and keep legacy aircraft firms in business.
I resent the shit out of my tax dollors being thrown away like this. If anyone needs to go to the moon, mars, or the asteroid-belt they can just pony up the money and hire SpaceX for the ride.
merriman said:NASA has lost its fighting edge to PC, political changes in the wind, and institutionalized avoidance of reasonable risk.
fredymac said:The SLS is symptomatic of the overarching problem affecting how NASA does everything. Institutionally, they retain the staffing and legacy facilities that grew out of the Apollo program. As a bureaucracy, NASA portions out large programs to sustain job levels which impose an overhead burden on total costs as well as adding schedule and additional layers of management. This results in $18Billion JWST telescopes, $1Billion rockets, and $100Billion space stations.
fredymac said:As a private citizen, I want to see government employees subject to the same uncertainties of job security as everyone else. That might provide the means to reduce bureaucracy to a minimum while turning over execution to entities that are motivated by direct knowledge of financial mortality.
Byeman said:fredymac said:As a private citizen, I want to see government employees subject to the same uncertainties of job security as everyone else. That might provide the means to reduce bureaucracy to a minimum while turning over execution to entities that are motivated by direct knowledge of financial mortality.
Have fun in that fantasy.
fredymac said:Byeman said:fredymac said:As a private citizen, I want to see government employees subject to the same uncertainties of job security as everyone else. That might provide the means to reduce bureaucracy to a minimum while turning over execution to entities that are motivated by direct knowledge of financial mortality.
Have fun in that fantasy.
Said before but bears repeating: Wow.
martinbayer said:fredymac said:Byeman said:fredymac said:As a private citizen, I want to see government employees subject to the same uncertainties of job security as everyone else. That might provide the means to reduce bureaucracy to a minimum while turning over execution to entities that are motivated by direct knowledge of financial mortality.
Have fun in that fantasy.
Said before but bears repeating: Wow.
Funny - I'd want private citizens to enjoy the same job security that government employees have ;D...
fredymac said:Byeman said:fredymac said:As a private citizen, I want to see government employees subject to the same uncertainties of job security as everyone else. That might provide the means to reduce bureaucracy to a minimum while turning over execution to entities that are motivated by direct knowledge of financial mortality.
Have fun in that fantasy.
Said before but bears repeating: Wow.