…from Joe Pappalardo:
It may be unfair to compare SpaceX and NASA, but SpaceX is built to be fast-but-risky whereas NASA is built to be slow-but-reliable. We’re now seeing that the fast-but-risky approach is actually leading to not only faster but more reliable results. Artemis is this giant U.S. government program that leaks money—as the Apollo program was—and that seems antiquated, but lots of members of Congress could get behind its traditional approach, which made use of languishing NASA facilities and had a supply chain stretching into lots of different communities. There are real benefits to NASA doing work across these communities, of course, but this approach can get in the way of doing things quickly, being able to change direction when engineers learn something new, or being free to adopt new technology and machinery. There’s less flexibility. And the Space Launch System isn’t reusable, either, meaning it’s a costly rocket that can only be used once. It would be foolish to stop this program now, but it would be grossly irresponsible to replicate it in the future.
He doesn’t explain why it would be “foolish to stop this program now.” I can only think that it’s the sunk-cost fallacy, but I think that what is foolish is to continue to throw good money after bad.
“He doesn’t explain why it would be “foolish to stop this program now.” I can only think that it’s the sunk-cost fallacy, but I think that what is foolish is to continue to throw good money after bad.”
Well, we [humans] tend to do stupid things, over and over again. So that is one reason. Do the stupid over again. I don’t think we overly encouraging the monopoly NASA has created, by insisting NASA launch that beast.
Also I think NASA should “make new rockets”, SLS is not a new rocket. But not only, do I want the solids and LH2 first stage “not work” as was predictable, I want to get a launch using Exploration Upper Stage, which is almost something new.
I just don’t point of canceling. Couple failed rocket launches, then I might see the point of canceling it.
Mainly, it’s too dangerous. So, obviously to expensive AND it might be dangerous, and it took far, far, too long to make it. The latter most important, and 3 strikes you are out.
Maybe NASA should try something different. There lots of new thing it could do.
Any space cadet could give a list, and I will not at the moment.
I grew up thinking that NASA was the smartest part of the US government.
Now I think they’re the dumbest.
Demonstrably.
I object to the characterization of SpaceX as fast and risky. This tells me this guy doesn’t know the first thing about risk management. Maybe he rescues his reasoning in the piece. Haven’t read it yet. But from the paragraph cited not promising.
Then there’s Blue Origin, slow and …oops… Blam.
You know the old saw: “Fast, reliable and cheap, pick two…”