Hacker News Reader

Comment by akira2501 | Hacker News Reader

For perspective 2.7B is 0.04% of the entire US budget for 2024. This is a rocket that goes to the moon. If your reaction is "lord help us" then perhaps space exploration just isn't in your blood.

View on HN

This isn't for the rocket, just the structure that it's connected to before launch. Tens of billions of dollars have already been wasted on the rocket. I say "wasted" because it's already essentially obsoleted by the Falcon Heavy which has been ready to go for years, is reliable, and launches at a tiny fraction of the cost. And by the time Starship comes into play you're talking about a Ford Pinto being sold at Lambo Veneno Roadster prices.

Falcon Heavy, fully expendable, can send about 15,190kg to TLI (Trans Lunar Injection). The Saturn V sent about 48,600kg to TLI.

The current SLS can send about 27,000kg to TLI, and block 2 is expected to send between 43,000kg and 47,000kg to TLI.

Could the Falcon Heavy be used on a multi-part moon mission? No doubt, but it's not in the same weight class as SLS.

The Falcon Heavy can ship can ship 16.8k kg to Mars [1] and that's at a higher delta V distance/cost than TLI. In general the SLS can carry around 50% more than a Falcon Heavy, but the Falcon Heavy (fully expended) costs 5-10% as much.

[1] - https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/falcon-heavy/

Thanks for the clarification. I dug around for numbers but didn't look in the most obvious place!

And yes, the cost difference is absolutely staggering.

I’m honestly shocked more “assemble in orbit” type mission structures haven’t been proposed. Falcon Heavy is just so convenient yet ignored.

> shocked more “assemble in orbit” type mission structures haven’t been proposed

It's unprecedented. A large part of Startship's technical risk in the Artemis programme is in-orbit refuelling.

That said, if IFT-5 or 6 can demonstrated recapture and an in-orbit fuelling attempt is made in 2025 that doesn't end catastrophically, I think the centre of mass of technical risk for Artemis shifts away from the novel fucking launch vehicle system that SpaceX has been tasked with building from the ground up to checks notes a rocket based on refurbished Space Shuttle engines and double checks this glorified launch tower.

Falcon Heavy has the thrust and the delta v, but it doesn’t have the fairing volume. Basically anything interesting that fits can be launched by smaller vehicles.

Starship will be a game changer in the most literal sense here as long as they figure out payload doors…

Just to add on, if you don't mind: the SLS uses four RS-25 engines, the exact same engines that were used on the Space Shuttle (admittedly, there is a plan to improve them later), as well as solid rocket engines that are derived from the Shuttle SRBs.

I actually do think that more than one US-based provider of space launch systems is something important, but it's wild to me that mature US launch systems can basically be cleanly divided into "companies trying to sell the same technology to the government for the fifth time over fifty years" and "SpaceX."

At this point would it have been cheaper to make Shuttle 2.0 with all the various flaws fixed lol

I'd like to expand on this and clarify for anyone reading this that it's not just using the same type of engines as the shuttle. They are literally the same reusable RS-25 engines taken off the shuttles over a decade ago and used for one final expendable launch. Likewise the SRB segments are reused from shuttle launches, but reconfigured and expended for one more launch on SLS. The $32 Billion spent so far on SLS have been to rearrange pieces from the shuttle parts bin.

There are further contracts to make new RS-25 engines and SRBs optimized for expendability once they run out of old shuttle equipment.

It's not for the rocket.

A moon rocket for 2.7B would be a steal. This is just for a mostly static steel tower (on a mobile carrier?) that holds the rocket up and provides some piping etc to the rocket before launch.

The mobile carrier is not included in the price AFAIK, but not sure.

It's tower on a large steel platform but it also includes significant GSE (ground support equipment) - cabling and cryogenic plumbing to connect to the rocket to let it be fueled and readied for launch, all connected via mechanical arms to pull the quick disconnects away from the rocket, in some cases into armored boxes to protect against the rocket exhaust. Plus a crew access arm to let astronauts board, elevators so they don't have to climb stairs in their space suits, etc., etc.,

It is carried around by one of the two existing crawler-transporters, which moves it between the VAB where the rocket is built and the launch pad.

What, this isn't even an new crawler/transporter? It's just the gantry and plumbing?

No need for a new one; the two they built for the Apollo program still work just fine.

Note that the crawler-transporter doesn't hang around at the pad during the launch - after setting the mobile launcher down at the pad, it drives away back towards the VAB until it's needed next.

During the Apollo era, it also transported the Mobile Service Structure - a tower with work platforms that allowed access to much of the spacecraft on top of the rocket.

Artemis has cost nearly $100B so far, and with increases like this, that seems unlikely to slow down.

If Musk wasn't going crazy, it would make sense to kill the SLS.

Shotwell seems like a solid CEO though?

Edit: she’s president and COO apparently. Musk is CEO, nm.

LOL everyone is thinking she's CEO:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41230320 also confuses the name/gender, Glenn vs. Gwynne

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39614912

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38863528

Do you think Musk's antics are having a notable negative effect on SpaceX? There's no doubt that's the case with Tesla.

This is why Shotwell mostly runs the show at SpaceX. Unlike Tesla, SpaceX runs like well oiled machine and is kicking butt.

> Do you think Musk's antics are having a notable negative effect on SpaceX?

Absolutely, politically. There is an alternate world in which Musk retained his bipartisan credentials where SpaceX is being handed the Artemis programme.

> There's no doubt that's the case with Tesla.

Um, yes.[1]

[1] https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-is-turning-off-would-be-tesla...

I think we're in agreement about Tesla. I believe that Musk's bullshit has greatly harmed that company. At the same time, I don't think it's hurt SpaceX very much.

Fair point. Space exploration takes a lot of money. But even that has a limit. $2.7b is like a looooot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com