- Joined
- Dec 14, 2019
- Threads
- 0
- Messages
- 462
- Reaction score
- 352
- Location
- Washington DC
- First Name
- Tyler
- Vehicle(s)
- 19 F150 19 Explorer 04 Thunderbird
- Banned
- #31
OP just learned not all troops are stationed CONUS......
ROFL.
ROFL.
Sponsored
Sorry, the car was purchased in Switzerland and delivered in TexasLooks like the car is going to Switzerland.
Dude, as a duce Nam vet, I'm more than aware of that.OP just learned not all troops are stationed CONUS......
ROFL.
I was in Fallujah Iraq before I was legal to drink. Ive done 6 rotations total.Dude, as a duce Nam vet, I'm more than aware of that.
The F35 is IMO a necessary evil, even though the program went way too wide, trying to check every possible box. Sure, it's not that much better than the aircraft that it's replacing, and it had many teething problems, but all of its predecessors have aged airframes and avionics systems (F22 excluded). Can't keep using them and upgrading them forever. Of course, with unmanned planes around the corner, it also seems like too much, too late. But it's still a neat plane with pretty good capabilities, especially with the hardpoints equipped. The air force base here has a squadron of them, and they're always training and dicking around. They can sure pull a 90 degree climb and loop pretty quick, that was a treat to see while I was just minding my business at work.With you on the first part. Strongly disagree with the second. The F35 and SLS programs immediately spring to mind.
SLS is a big peepee tho. IF they can get it to hit its intended performance targets, then it will be pretty much required for manned missions to the moon, and later mars. So yeah, it's been a shitty investment so far, but it still pales in cost to the shuttle program as a whole. The shuttle at least became instrumental in the work it was able to perform, so maybe the SLS can redeem itself. I know SpaceX has been doing great with commercial launches, and their reusable rocket seems very promising, but I don't know if they have anything capable of matching the theoretical performance outcome, at least not yet. I could be misinformed though.The SLS isn't money spent on space though. It's money spent on the promise of a rocket that has yet to see a single launch. Meanwhile, SpaceX is repeatedly sending payloads AND astronauts into orbit. NASA even awarded them the moon contract.
The F35 might have morphed from one plane to three, and gone wildly out of the "high low" scope, but as you said, the program has at least resulted in an aircraft(s). The SLS program has gone outside of scope and budget, with exactly nothing to show for it. Except maybe some very happy Boeing executives. At this point it looks like a poster child for the sunk cost fallacy.
Someone needs to say enough is enough. They've spent $20 billion to get to a single (scheduled) launch. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll mention SpaceX one last time. Their price for a commercial launch is $62 million. That $20 billion could have put 322 payloads into orbit. Instead it will (maybe) have been used to launch one. Icing on the cake, each subsequent launch is estimated to cost an additional $2 billion. At a rate of 1/year.
...rant over
I want to see more spaceflight in my lifetime as well. NASA should put their money toward research and projects. Ironically, it turns out they're terrible rocket scientists (or just really bad at accounting). They're incredibly good and designing and running experiments in space. They make satellites and probes and rovers that almost universally massively over deliver. I'd love to see more of that.
Hmmm, I thought it was higher, or at least projected to be a lot higher later in the program. I won't dispute SpaceX is going to send more total tonnage into space for the same money, but going to the moon or other planets isn't something that those rockets are designed for, so I thought that was a factor in some of the excess costs? I'm not that plugged in to the nitty gritty of any of these programs, just a casual enthusiast who likes to watch launches. So you know more than I. I did enjoy the recent Dragon launch, went without a hitch.SLS - 154k lbs. payload
Falcon Heavy - 140k lbs. payload
17 Falcon heavy launches ($2 billion worth based on the $117 million NASA paid for one FH launch) - 2.3 million lbs. payload.
The Super Heavy/Starship is even bigger. I'd bet good money it launches long before the SLS cargo II, and for a fraction of the cost.
For reference, a Saturn V launch put up 310k lbs. for ~$1.2 billion (today's money).
A 120 meter tall peepee would be pretty impressive. The SLS Block 2 must have been what figures I was thinking of. I guess we'll see who burns some oxygen firstThat's what Starship is for. If you want a big peepee launch system, here you go:
Especially if you consider when it happened and what else was around at the time. Certainly a notch up on the Corvair !Also, it's hilarious just how absurdly good the Saturn V was, from its capabilities to its launch record.
It took 4 pages - that is pretty good going'da fuq did this thread start with a Mustang that may or may not be shipped over-seas, completely derail to friggin' space ships 4 pages later?
Hey - don't you go thinking you are the king of derailing !You're welcome