forums

Off-Topic Space, the final frontier, these are the voyages of NASA

Advertisement
90scane said:
You follow this more than me. Will he help move things along a little faster?
Click to expand...
I think everyone needs to go into this expecting NASAs budget to get reduced, regardless. That means we need someone who can do more with less. At least with Isaacman, it ensures the guy leading NASA is at least A) Competent leader B) Loves Space, and is proven personally invested C) Values the important things that NASA SHOULD be the leader in like Exploration, Science missions and R&D that have no immediate private investment. D) Someone who wants to drastically reduce the beuracracy and ELIMINATE Cost-Plus contracts, E) Someone who actually wants to get **** the **** done.

He's said repeatedly how he'd prefer to shift to the mindset of having 10+ $100M science missions yearly developed in conjuction with like universities with 1 or 2 failing, than spending $2B on one singular science mission that takes 5 years developing. When they are more expensive like that failure is not an option, and that increase the development time and increases the costs obviously. That's why it seems Like NASA is so ******* slow. It's like they do 2 big missions but have zero margin for error which just greatly balloons everything. The problem with this is if Isaacman is only head of NASA for 2.5-3 years or whatever it is, then how much can he REALLY get done positive. He's just gunna get all the blame for the budget cuts and reorg they have to undergo, and then he will just be starting to put his plan into motion before next election occurs, possibly before we really start to see the Science missions really launch. So from that aspect I think in the Science missions Isaacman is probably the best we could really hope for. He's got the gameplan to flatten the org shift priorities of certain centers so they aren't working on useless **** that private companies are already handling better, cheaper, and faster.

Anyways, MOSTLY he will be judged based on Artemis/Moon and the new "race" with China (that is mostly meaningless). I suspect this is what you're asking about in particular. But I'd just say that A) What the **** is REALLY the point in winning a meaningless race to do the same thing we already won 50 years ago - footprints and a flag mission? The REAL RACE is setting up a true Lunar Base. And to do that the current HLS selections are already best options and are imo on track to beat Chine to the same milestone, but B) How should we really expect any NEW lander selection to speed much up when the item most lagging is actually the spacesuits, and obviously any new lander would be starting from scratch (unless it's just a SpaceX design lmao), and be incredibly overpriced for FAR WORSE functionality than the current HLS selections bring. Like SpaceX is the ONLY provider that is currently Human rated for a launcher. They are the only ones with any modern experience that they can learn from and apply to their Current lander design (which is why HLS is just using a **** load of Crew Dragon learnings/hardware)...

Oh and then there is SLS and Orion....I believe if there was ZERO politics to it and it was purely about what is actually best investment, he'd immediately cancel SLS and Orion, which is what ANYONE with a brain and doesn't want to see **** near $4B/yr literally going to absolute waste would do. Unfortunately due to politics the Senate Launch System is unlikely to be cancelled for at least 2 more missions (at a nice little launch cost of like $4B/launch!). So we have a race to the Moon, there will likely be some bids for Quicker Moon landing missions, but I'd bet all my money on SpaceX getting there first regardless. And all that aside from Starship and Blue Origins HLS lander would be useless long-term anyway, if the plan is to have a base on the moon.... You know how you speed up our Moon landing goal? You cancel SLS+Orion tomorrow (already enough hardware for a couple launches). You tell SpaceX and Blue Origin that there is a $2B reward for proven demonstration of landing on the moon with X mass goal, followed by a crew mission. However they choose to reach that goal is up to them. They can use Crew Dragon or whatever else needed. You give them the incentive, and let them figure it out. It'll be done far faster than any BS Cost-Plus contract to Boeing+Lockheed.
 
Calinative said:
I think everyone needs to go into this expecting NASAs budget to get reduced, regardless. That means we need someone who can do more with less. At least with Isaacman, it ensures the guy leading NASA is at least A) Competent leader B) Loves Space, and is proven personally invested C) Values the important things that NASA SHOULD be the leader in like Exploration, Science missions and R&D that have no immediate private investment. D) Someone who wants to drastically reduce the beuracracy and ELIMINATE Cost-Plus contracts, E) Someone who actually wants to get **** the **** done.

He's said repeatedly how he'd prefer to shift to the mindset of having 10+ $100M science missions yearly developed in conjuction with like universities with 1 or 2 failing, than spending $2B on one singular science mission that takes 5 years developing. When they are more expensive like that failure is not an option, and that increase the development time and increases the costs obviously. That's why it seems Like NASA is so ******* slow. It's like they do 2 big missions but have zero margin for error which just greatly balloons everything. The problem with this is if Isaacman is only head of NASA for 2.5-3 years or whatever it is, then how much can he REALLY get done positive. He's just gunna get all the blame for the budget cuts and reorg they have to undergo, and then he will just be starting to put his plan into motion before next election occurs, possibly before we really start to see the Science missions really launch. So from that aspect I think in the Science missions Isaacman is probably the best we could really hope for. He's got the gameplan to flatten the org shift priorities of certain centers so they aren't working on useless **** that private companies are already handling better, cheaper, and faster.

Anyways, MOSTLY he will be judged based on Artemis/Moon and the new "race" with China (that is mostly meaningless). I suspect this is what you're asking about in particular. But I'd just say that A) What the **** is REALLY the point in winning a meaningless race to do the same thing we already won 50 years ago - footprints and a flag mission? The REAL RACE is setting up a true Lunar Base. And to do that the current HLS selections are already best options and are imo on track to beat Chine to the same milestone, but B) How should we really expect any NEW lander selection to speed much up when the item most lagging is actually the spacesuits, and obviously any new lander would be starting from scratch (unless it's just a SpaceX design lmao), and be incredibly overpriced for FAR WORSE functionality than the current HLS selections bring. Like SpaceX is the ONLY provider that is currently Human rated for a launcher. They are the only ones with any modern experience that they can learn from and apply to their Current lander design (which is why HLS is just using a **** load of Crew Dragon learnings/hardware)...

Oh and then there is SLS and Orion....I believe if there was ZERO politics to it and it was purely about what is actually best investment, he'd immediately cancel SLS and Orion, which is what ANYONE with a brain and doesn't want to see **** near $4B/yr literally going to absolute waste would do. Unfortunately due to politics the Senate Launch System is unlikely to be cancelled for at least 2 more missions (at a nice little launch cost of like $4B/launch!). So we have a race to the Moon, there will likely be some bids for Quicker Moon landing missions, but I'd bet all my money on SpaceX getting there first regardless. And all that aside from Starship and Blue Origins HLS lander would be useless long-term anyway, if the plan is to have a base on the moon.... You know how you speed up our Moon landing goal? You cancel SLS+Orion tomorrow (already enough hardware for a couple launches). You tell SpaceX and Blue Origin that there is a $2B reward for proven demonstration of landing on the moon with X mass goal, followed by a crew mission. However they choose to reach that goal is up to them. They can use Crew Dragon or whatever else needed. You give them the incentive, and let them figure it out. It'll be done far faster than any BS Cost-Plus contract to Boeing+Lockheed.
Click to expand...

I was more interested in just getting **** done faster. I’m also for the last paragraph. Cut the $4b launches that are worthless other than to line pockets of defense contractors. I’d take that 8b and offer $3b to each to build reusable systems & a $2b kicker for the first to do it.
 
Canedog said:
Cool. When will it be ready to deliver packages for Amazon?
Click to expand...
Kuiper has rebranded to Amazon Leo, and it is the primary delivery system for their Starlink competitor. I imagine the Kuiper/Amazon Leo sats will be the primary test payloads for the reused boosters, as they use new boosters for Government payloads…until reuse is proven

Amazon and Blue origin are entirely different companies though…
 
Last edited:
90scane said:
I was more interested in just getting **** done faster. I’m also for the last paragraph. Cut the $4b launches that are worthless other than to line pockets of defense contractors. I’d take that 8b and offer $3b to each to build reusable systems & a $2b kicker for the first to do it.
Click to expand...
Btw this is a good summary of the situation regarding us getting back to the moon.

 
Advertisement
Artemis is out on the launch pad.
Resized_20260128_150933.jpeg

Resized_20260128_150615.jpeg

DSC_0352.JPG

DSC_0392.JPG
 
Last edited:
Space Data Centers are the Medium/Long term future of the space economy. The short-term future is LEO Communications constellations (Starlink, Starlink DTC, and it's competitors like Kuiper).

But long term its entirely about Data Centers in space. With SpaceX buying Xai and IPOing soon, this is the direction they are sprinting towards. And it aligns everything behind Starship. The only way Space Data centers make any economic sense is if you can get $/kg to like <$100/kg. This is the ultimate goal of Starship reusability short-medium term. And from there you need to maximize solar energy generation based on the orbit, and increase radiator operating temperatures as high as possible and to be as shielded from the sun as possible to decrease radiator mass launch needs...


Space Intelligence

research.33fg.com research.33fg.com

Definitely going to be intereting. Musk is going all-in on this. This is the kind of risk-everything approach that either kills the company or is ultimately looked back on as the only reason it succeeded in landing humans on Mars and...
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
Artemis waits until March.

Click to expand...

Smh... the sooner SLS launches the sooner it can be killed. Think there's what 3 missions that will HAVE to be launched on SLS?... That'll take like 6 years...

Legit SLS is the biggest waste of money and time in all of Space launch history I think. The PERFECT example of Congress being morons. They spent more and still spending more on the mobile launch towers than I swear to God SpaceX has spent literally developing Starbase in totality. literally the launch tower for JUST artemis 1-3 was ORIGINALLY expected to cost <$100M... So far it's already cost $1B ******* dollars. And Mobile launch tower 2 and additional upgrades which is needed for the future artemis launches was AWARDED for $380M. It's already spent $1.8B with expectations it'll be closer to $2.7B when complete - which btw they don't expect till ******* 2029!... All for a ******* rocket that only will launch like <10 total times... SLS has already cost us $29B. And each launch is estimated to cost $2-4B... And Orion and everything else pushes that total investment to $50B.... All spent to do legit nothing useful.

And yet it constantly leaks cause they can't solve their hydrogen leaking problem, the heat shield on Orion is a mess and potentially crew life threatening...

Just pure ******* insanity. We NEED Starship and New Glenn and even Neutron to be incredibly successful asap so Congress can **** off and not get in Isaacmans way of killing SLS.
 
ddann said:
How many more times will this launch date get pushed back? And then, will they eventually just decide not to do it at all?
Seems likely.
Click to expand...
Nah it’ll be done eventually… they have to. Best we can hope for is only like 2-4 launches until it’s retired…
 
Calinative said:
Nah it’ll be done eventually… they have to. Best we can hope for is only like 2-4 launches until it’s retired…
Click to expand...

Don’t kid yourself. They don’t HAVE TO do anything. They could scrap the whole project tomorrow.

I’m not saying they will, but it definitely wouldn’t surprise me at all.
 
Back
Top