Re:Starship is still not understood
by panick21_ on Thursday October 28, 2021 @09:42AM
(#29026017)
> I think the risk to NASA of assuming the benefits of Starship before it’s proven are just too high.
I think the risk of not doing so is to high.
And NASA is already relaying on it. They have had all the data and they selected it for Human Landing System. They knew what it required and they were comfortable with it.
> If NASA (or other industry players), assume Starship will deliver the benefits it promises
It doesn't have to deliver on everything to be worth designing for it.
> But that leaves them with no backup plan
Going back what they always did before is the backup plan.
How come wasting 20 billion on SLS is totally reasonable, but risking a few billion on starting with designing for a rocket that doesn't exist isn't.
> I think once Starship has proven itself capable of deliver on its promises, you’ll see NASA changing its approach radically in the manner the author describes.
But that will leave a years to decade long gap of actually profiting from it.
> but a different calibration of “risk”
Yes an incredibly conservative one that would have meant the US could never go to the moon.
I think the risk of not doing so is to high.
And NASA is already relaying on it. They have had all the data and they selected it for Human Landing System. They knew what it required and they were comfortable with it.
> If NASA (or other industry players), assume Starship will deliver the benefits it promises
It doesn't have to deliver on everything to be worth designing for it.
> But that leaves them with no backup plan
Going back what they always did before is the backup plan.
How come wasting 20 billion on SLS is totally reasonable, but risking a few billion on starting with designing for a rocket that doesn't exist isn't.
> I think once Starship has proven itself capable of deliver on its promises, you’ll see NASA changing its approach radically in the manner the author describes.
But that will leave a years to decade long gap of actually profiting from it.
> but a different calibration of “risk”
Yes an incredibly conservative one that would have meant the US could never go to the moon.