The Space Thread - Launches, Events, Live Streams, Governments, Corporations, drama in Spaaaaaaaaaaaace

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
So I happened across a video with alternative launch footage that NASA had but didn't show in the launch stream. Whoever is responsible needs to be kicked in the crotch repeatedly for not showing this.

 
Disdainer of the Plebs said:
So I happened across a video with alternative launch footage that NASA had but didn't show in the launch stream. Whoever is responsible needs to be kicked in the crotch repeatedly for not showing this.

Click to expand...
how the fuck did they not use this view instead?!?!?

fucking beautiful.PNG
 
Last edited:
Kwisatz00 said:
how the fuck did they not use this view instead?!?!?
Click to expand...
Their stream producers suck. The hours of pointless yapping, the announcer with a voice for print, it felt like amateur hour compared to even SpaceX streams, and the 1960s presentations and footage make both of them look like titty baby nursery hour.

We're going back to the fucking moon, the presentation needs to have gravitas.
 
warhammerautist said:
I am sure that applies more to the orion spacecraft but not the launch itself.
Click to expand...
Short answer from Duck AI-

"Human spaceflight is materially more expensive per mission and per kilogram/seat than uncrewed cargo launches because of safety, life-support, certification, and program-level costs."
 
Disdainer of the Plebs said:
So I happened across a video with alternative launch footage that NASA had but didn't show in the launch stream. Whoever is responsible needs to be kicked in the crotch repeatedly for not showing this.

Click to expand...
Fantastic footage. The SRB separation is so cool to watch from the rocket POV.

And I forgot that the crew can't see out the windows until they jettison the LES.
 
warhammerautist said:
I am sure that applies more to the orion spacecraft but not the launch itself.
Click to expand...

It's a government-run operation, so the inflated price-tag is to be expected. The bureaucracy that oversees these operations is not cheap. Add to that the costs of running the Kennedy Space Center, barely any of the SLS components being reusable, all the one-off tooling and adjustments needed to get the refurbished hardware to work with enough of a safety margin so that you don't turn your astronauts into spam, etc.
 
Hazard Crab said:
It's a government-run operation, so the inflated price-tag is to be expected. The bureaucracy that oversees these operations is not cheap. Add to that the costs of running the Kennedy Space Center, barely any of the SLS components being reusable, all the one-off tooling and adjustments needed to get the refurbished hardware to work with enough of a safety margin so that you don't turn your astronauts into spam, etc.
Click to expand...
Aside from that, it's the hardware costs per mission. SpaceX Dragon flights aren't notably more expensive than their cargo or satellite flights, because they're saving a significant cost through hardware re-use. They amortise (my favourite word this month, it seems) the cost of the hardware construction across multiple flights, which includes manned flights. Artemis, in contrast, is almost entirely single-use. They're throwing hugely expensive engines into the ocean after a single shot. The only re-usable parts are the solid rocket boosters, but those are pretty much just recycled for scrap when they return.

SpaceX, with Starship, is trying to overcome the issues Orbiter had with heat-shield fitting and maintenance. The heat-shield was one of the reasons Orbiter ended up being so expensive to run, alongside the fact that they also threw away a significant chunk of hardware on every flight. Whether SpaceX can crack the heat-shield issue with Starship is open to debate. I suspect it'll be something they can't overcome, but since they're saving a chunk of money with the re-usable lower stage, they may just eat the cost and compensate by building more starship upper stages. Make it up in volume.
 
teriyakiburns said:
Aside from that, it's the hardware costs per mission. SpaceX Dragon flights aren't notably more expensive than their cargo or satellite flights, because they're saving a significant cost through hardware re-use. They amortise (my favourite word this month, it seems) the cost of the hardware construction across multiple flights, which includes manned flights. Artemis, in contrast, is almost entirely single-use. They're throwing hugely expensive engines into the ocean after a single shot. The only re-usable parts are the solid rocket boosters, but those are pretty much just recycled for scrap when they return.

SpaceX, with Starship, is trying to overcome the issues Orbiter had with heat-shield fitting and maintenance. The heat-shield was one of the reasons Orbiter ended up being so expensive to run, alongside the fact that they also threw away a significant chunk of hardware on every flight. Whether SpaceX can crack the heat-shield issue with Starship is open to debate. I suspect it'll be something they can't overcome, but since they're saving a chunk of money with the re-usable lower stage, they may just eat the cost and compensate by building more starship upper stages. Make it up in volume.
Click to expand...
tldr: cargo is easy to transport, humans not so much.
 
warhammerautist said:
My only question is what makes the SLS cost 2-4 billion dollars a launch while the Angara-A5 or Space X Falcon heavy are way cheaper to launch.
Click to expand...
Taxpayer funded = high cost. Infinite money glitch.
Kwisatz00 said:
a proper safety analysis.
Click to expand...
Debatable.
Kwisatz00 said:
cool lets just use an ICBM to launch the flesh, is obviously cheaper, who cares if the flesh survives.
Click to expand...
Um. NASA did just that with the Mercury program. They were modified ICBMs.
 
Sam Losco said:
Taxpayer funded = high cost. Infinite money glitch.

Debatable.

Um. NASA did just that with the Mercury program. They were modified ICBMs.
Click to expand...
awesome! put some people on it!

teriyakiburns said:
I pointed out that Dragon flies on the same rockets they use for cargo flights, including re-used lower stages, and isn't notably more expensive. Did you miss that part?
Click to expand...
I do apologise, I would have thought trying to keep a human alive on a space trip would need more than just reusable rockets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kwisatz00 said:
cool lets just use an ICBM to launch the flesh, is obviously cheaper, who cares if the flesh survives.
Click to expand...
Mercury did this with Redstone and Atlas missiles, Gemini did it with Titan II, and the Soviets did pretty much all of their successful crewed and uncrewed programs like Sputnik, Luna, Vostok, Vokshod and Soyuz on developments of the R-7 Semyorka ICBM.

The Saturn rockets were the first successful ones purpose-designed from the ground up for human travel.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom