Wouldn’t your proposed headline also be noteworthy, inappropriate, and worrisome? Not at the same level, surely, but it doesn’t make the idea sound good.
The problem here is the normalization and promotion of a product that turns human suffering and shame into entertainment and cash. It happens a lot throughout history and it is bad every time. It is morally wrong to profit from the suffering of others.
This is entirely inaccurate.
ISS does not use cryogenics for propulsion. Why? Because cryogenic fuel transfer is crazy hard. Starship cryogenic demonstration was just moving fuel between two tanks in the same vehicle… a trick NASA mastered and surpassed with the Shuttle external tank.
For better or worse, both China and the US view space primarily as a means to demonstrate dominance and prove technological superiority. Antarctica is significantly easier to get to, has way less tactical utility, and seems otherwise irrelevant to the conversation.
I’ve wondered when this story would break. It’s been down since sept 16.
Absolutely will start to happen. Civil servants are working without pay, but the contractors can only work until their forward funding runs out, which is going to vary based on contract and how pessimistic the COR was about shutdown duration.
Once those contracts furlough, employees will have to look elsewhere pretty fast - federal workers get reimbursed but contractors don’t. If that happens enough, there may not be enough workforce to maintain momentum on the other side of the shutdown.
/shrug. If you’re saying “this whole situation sucks”, I agree.
For the record, I didn’t say DoT made sense, just that it made more sense than the alternatives for cabinet-level representation. NASA administrator in the cabinet is an unserious suggestion - scope of the position is tiny with respect to a cabinet secretary’s even if NASA got all the funding it needed to do the job.
Neither Isaacman nor Duffy are going to prioritize climate science, so that’s a straw man.
My primary point still stands - Duffy throws way more weight in the Trump administration and is therefore better able to protect or advance NASA’s needs/goals/objectives. Isaacman doesn’t even have enough clout to survive a hatchet job during a straightforward nomination. Better qualified yes, but no indication he can actually be effective in this environment.
In a rational timeline, there’s a clear answer. I submit that we are not currently in a rational timeline.
The fight between Duffy and isaacman keeps NASA on the radar and establishes it for Trump as a valuable object - something that people are willing to fight to have. That perception of value (note - NASA is intrinsically valuable in a rational world, see above) insulates it from Vought. I think the fight over NASA is good for the agency workforce and I hope it continues.
NASA having cabinet-level advocacy is not a bad thing. Transportation is an odd fit but the only other place I could think of it to go would be State given all the international tie-ins. Having someone with the ear of the president is not a bad thing. On the other hand, someone who’s been to space as the administrator is not a bad thing. Someone with actual experience running large organizations is not a bad thing.
Having someone that wants to run the agency like a business is a problem. Having someone that is tied to Musk probably is a problem. Having someone that doesn’t have political capital because they used it all getting the job… that’s a really bad news story.
Honestly, given the choice between two tan white guys with big ears and earnest expressions, I guess I’m actually leaning towards the lumberjack over the credit card processor. See above, we are not in a rational timeline.
I think this is an excellent way to convince Duffy that he’s doing something impressive. My read is that he’s super stoked to be part of NASA, really wants to do something to help, but is not sufficiently qualified or well-informed to know what to do. I can totally see Amit saying “if you don’t like the schedule, the only thing we can do is ask for other options” and Sean saying “yeah totally let’s do that, I understand that”.
The Starship mission concept makes everyone really uncomfortable, but the BO concept is an evolution of what NASA wanted to do back before HLS went commercial. I think it’s got a chance to accelerate and beat 2030 with some kind of minimum viable product.
The recompete also pokes Elon in the eye with a sharp stick at the same time that his buddy Isaacman is angling for the administrator job. The best part is that it doesn’t actually change anything - it gives the impression of progress at very little cost.
I still haven’t gotten a straight answer about this, and I’ve asked around.
It’s true he didn’t particularly encourage folks to consider the DRP, but the new AA has told us the personnel bullshit is behind us so that doesn’t seem right.
It’s true that he’s ultimately the bag holder for the HLS and especially SLS schedule and budget slips as the center director for MSFC. The AA has spoken on multiple occasions about the need to hold senior leadership personally accountable, but blaming Pelfrey for SLS isn’t fair - that happened like 4 center directors ago.
The person that can reasonably bear the blame for SLS is John Honeycutt, the SLS program manager for pretty close to the entire lifetime of the program. He was recently reassigned to a far less consequential role and replaced as PM by the former SLS SE&I manager (David Beaman). Amit worked with Beaman before he ascended and I heard the relationship was positive.
My best guess is that Pelfrey protested or tried to prevent this change out of loyalty to Honeycutt and got cut off at the knees for his troubles.
SpaceX playing soccer with COPVs and then bolting them on the vehicle doesn’t feel like a more comforting answer but I agree it’s one I didn’t list. Not sure I understand why people would be rattling around inside the vehicle after a single engine test and then not re-running the single engine for a regression test.
/shrug, still you’re right. Unreported damage post-installation would totally do this, it’s just not a root cause I’ve seen. Would speak to a breakdown in safety culture for my folks, not sure what the safety culture looks like on the Starship line.
I’ve seen that math and something like that could work. Elon turned off the spigot on falcon heavy launches to create a bigger market for Starship.
Blue’s lander aggregates in a manner similar to what you describe, as did NASA’s original government reference design.
The other thing you’re talking about is basically Gateway. You’re pitching (more or less) the NASA concept circa 2019. :)
Oh c’mon.
Cannot possibly spin “blew up randomly during test prep” as a positive outcome. They probably don’t know how not to build that specific one unless they happened to instrument the faulty prop system components - they know that it failed but likely not why or how to fix it.
All evidence points to Starship having a super-finicky MPS that fails on the regular… which probably means they’re chasing performance by removing mass from the MPS and tank structure… which means either this design doesn’t work (totally possible) or that the as-built performance falls short of what was promised.
If you want to stan for Musk, I guess everyone has a type and I’m not going to shame you over it… but blowing up during test prep is not a good news story.
Maybe. Regardless, problem either in design or build.
Designing under-reinforced tanks indicates that the design can’t make payload and they’re cutting too far into structure allocations to make up for it.
Rupture could also be poor materials (sign of Boeing-style disregard for standards and safety) or a bad weld (same plus maybe training issues on the line). Means they’re running bad QA/QC protocols if the faulty material/construction made it to flight.
Chasing performance at the cost of safety sounds right down Musk’s alley.
Honestly curious about that. Anyone around know what the impact is? May need to get a NASA scientist involved… oh, wait, they all are getting fired. /sigh
Tough to really throw even partial blame for global warming on chemical propulsion launches. Funny thought, though. :)
Go fast and break stuff is a viable way to rapidly iterate inside a known box, which is really what spaceX did with dragon and falcon. NASA gave them a big head start - they more or less had an engine design, more or less knew how to build a gn&c (even for propulsive return), more or less knew how to build the sticks… just wasn’t efficient or cost-effective. Cutting bits off to see if the overall system still operates is kinda how the relationship between govt and industry is supposed to work.
Starship isn’t iterating inside a known box. It’s not a smarter cheaper version of existing tech, it’s a whole new thing that Elon just kinda spoke into existence. It must be fun to have that kind of money and power, but it doesn’t mean the idea will ever actually work - and this is where the deliberate, methodical process that NASA uses becomes more valuable.
What’ll be interesting is when SpaceX starts missing payment milestones. I think they’ve gotten some grace in the past. Not sure the current environment is as permissive. Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s part of why Elon wants to shift the goalposts to Mars - it’d give him more time to sort out some of the fundamental challenges with his concept.
Feeling very conflicted about this. Glad the folks are safe. Worried about the implications for Artemis III and the agency. Pretty sure every failure so far has been in the prop system, which is troubling given that the whole strategy for Starship requires extraordinary advancement in prop transfer technology.
Hard to deny a bit of schadenfreude for Elon taking it in the shorts again. Curious if his antics have had morale implications in SpaceX that are helping to generate misses.
A reminder for folks that starship is only viable if they can routinely execute autonomous in-space cryogenic fuel transfers. This explosion appears to be the result of a problem in human-executed on-Earth cryogenic fuel transfer.
The president proposed cutting Artemis after Artemis III. Congress hasn’t yet agreed, so there’s a lot more to go and it wouldn’t affect the Artemis II launch.
I could be talked into Europe. Not so sure about Beijing. Folks that might be willing to go to china (at least in my neck of the woods) get weeded out pretty quick.
It’d require an Apollo-level investment and I think Europe is gonna be focused on more prosaic concerns.
I don’t think a brain drain is avoidable and I don’t think it’s undesirable for the current administration. Keeping a strong civil servant workforce doesn’t seem like a priority.
I think honestly it’s not just the conflict of interest threat that warrants someone in public office divesting themselves. We’re seeing that it’s better for the companies too - keeps them insulated from the impact of unpopular decisions.
The surface area of the moon is about the same as the continent of Africa. Think about all the different kinds of dirt you might encounter on Africa. If you were building a house in Morocco, would you want to rely on soil samples from South Africa?
Regolith properties vary based on location even with the samples we’ve got. It’s reasonably important to understand the local soil conditions before we start trying to land 10-story buildings on the surface. No other option but to send something up to learn that info. Cheaper to use a robot than a human.