Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Work is progressing on the next SpaceX development, the BFR (Big Falcon Rocket, get your minds out of the gutter). And in true "Get out there and get it done!" style, they're building the first tooling in a tent. A tent in the corner of a lot in the LA Harbor.
Can anyone imagine NASA (today's NASA, not the 1960s glory days) or anyone in the NASA supply chain say "Sure, we'll make do with a tent for now."
SpaceX have gotten permission to zone a huge harbor area for their permanent BFR facility and there will undoubtedly be proper buildings, but this is completely their style.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 04-24-2018 at 02:09 PM..
It's not about SpaceX kicking NASA's behind. NASA is governmental, needing government spending. SpaceX is commercial, with many more options. They are two very different "animals". Each's approach to business and development are worlds apart.
NASA is winding down anyway. It's time has passed. It's now the time of the commercial companies (SpaceX, Boeing, Lockheed Martin), etc.
NASA earned its respect and honor in a different time. SpaceX and others are on the new stage. Times change.
There is NO COMMERCIAL SENSE OR PROSPECT in going to Mars. Or, even Moon. This is pointless mental distraction for minds. Giving crowds false goals to follow. Something else, besides sports, music and sex, to drool over.
Whatever distracts from the reality of life.
Always remember Waterworld. People oaring mindlessly a huge rusted tanker in unknown direction, full of hope seeded in them by clever manipulator. That's all Musk is doing.
It's not about SpaceX kicking NASA's behind. NASA is governmental, needing government spending. SpaceX is commercial, with many more options. They are two very different "animals". Each's approach to business and development are worlds apart.
Well, I'd argue that as both are developing heavy lifters now, there is basis for comparison. And the contrast could hardly be starker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
NASA is winding down anyway. It's time has passed. It's now the time of the commercial companies (SpaceX, Boeing, Lockheed Martin), etc.
When it comes to basic science as it applies to space, NASA (still) has a colossal edge within the field - nobody does probes like JPL, for instance.
Well, I'd argue that as both are developing heavy lifters now, there is basis for comparison. And the contrast could hardly be starker.
Well, even that is misleading. NASA has turned over nearly all of that work to commercial vendors (Boeing, Lockheed Martin. etc). Most of the cutting-edge stuff is not done "in-house" at NASA anymore. What's left at NASA is mostly symbolic. Even the brainpower is mostly gone. The classic engineers of the golden years of NASA have nearly all retired. And no, the new kids on the block are not on the same par and level as the legends of spaceflight.
I had an inside look at NASA for years, and it just isn't the same organization. And to add insult to injury, they're getting a complete joke and amateur of a new administrator from you know who (DJT). He'll likely decimate what's left. Just sad.
Well, even that is misleading. NASA has turned over nearly all of that work to commercial vendors (Boeing, Lockheed Martin. etc).
Indeed. And I don't imagine anyone in that supply chain setting up shop in a tent.
Quote:
Most of the cutting-edge stuff is not done "in-house" at NASA anymore. What's left at NASA is mostly symbolic. Even the brainpower is mostly gone. The classic engineers of the golden years of NASA have nearly all retired. And no, the new kids on the block are not on the same par and level as the legends of spaceflight.
Not having the inside perspective, I will confess I'm in awe at the exploration missions. Mars rovers, Juno etc. - cool stuff, and I don't see anyone getting close to that. But it's time for NASA to get out of building lifting rockets in-house.
Quote:
And to add insult to injury, they're getting a complete joke and amateur of a new administrator from you know who (DJT). He'll likely decimate what's left. Just sad.
Said it before: NASA's biggest mistake was to become the Shuttle owner/operator.
How?, Why? The space shuttle was an enormously complex vehicle. I'm surprised there weren't many more "O-ring" type issues. That they're weren't shows the brainpower that existed at NASA. I'd like to see the modern - or even prior - contractors pull off what NASA did, without many more failures and issues. The shuttle program, Gemini and Apollo programs, and the ISS, have all been engineering marvels. Very high caliber.
Again, as someone on the inside, I saw "the real deal"; not information second-hand, guessed at, or filtered down through the levels of media. It's both hilarious and disgusting to hear misinformation about NASA being so easily spread and distributed around.
How?, Why? The space shuttle was an enormously complex vehicle.
That it was. Too complex for the state of the art of the time, too complex because it was a Swiss Army Knife built to do everything, and not do one thing really well. Too complex because it was the result of a political compromise to keep specific suppliers in the green. It never lived up to anything near what was promised, and it was dangerous. (Expensive, too.)
Quote:
I'm surprised there weren't many more "O-ring" type issues. That they're weren't shows the brainpower that existed at NASA.
I am not denying that, at all. I'm saying it was colossal amounts of brainpower (and money) extended on doing the wrong thing extremely well. The resources expended on keeping the Shuttle flying could have been used in a more constructive manner.
Quote:
I'd like to see the modern - or even prior - contractors pull off what NASA did, without many more failures and issues. The shuttle program, Gemini and Apollo programs, and the ISS, have all been engineering marvels. Very high caliber.
I really am sorry if it came across as if I was implying NASA did shoddy engineering, because with what they were given in the Shuttle, they did marvels.
Politics forced NASA to sink resources into the Shuttle. Those resources could have been spent better. Apollo was a kick-ass program - so good that we looked into re-engineering the J-2 engine in the early 2000s. Imagine if we'd headed down that road instead...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
