Also what’s even the point in this? Like we both know this vehicle will absolutely become operational and if it’s anything like falcon 9 live up to its expectations in terms to reusability and upmass. Is your claim that it won’t?

Falcon 9 had to be. And the gulf between the two makes it harder for starship to become operational before it is fully matured too

And not sure why you put iterated in quotes. That’s how iterative development works. Not understanding it isn’t a fault of it and being ignorant to it is just dumb

Falcon 9 also stretched through its development. And introduced not 1, not 2, not 3, but 5 different blocks before it met the full goals it set out to. Notifying a pattern?

It’s just the next rung of the ladder but it will climb them just like Falcon 9 did despite the same “they’ve yet to reuse any of them” mentality in 2016

It does work (Block 2 demonstrated that) and yeah they still need to show it works

But this is the exact same as everything they’ve already shown such as booster recovery and reuse, entry, targeted splashdowns, simulated payloads, etc

Congress holds the purse. They dictate what happens not the administration

Issacman is not anti science guy. On both the missions he commanded they took a great deal of science to conduct and have delivered a lot of findings from them

NASA recently announced new planned science missions too.

Most of what?

For the interim block 2 yes. Not block 3

Block 2 was capped by having the last gen booster

It could have. That jump is a few seconds long burn time. The choice not to before flight 13 is just that, a choice. Because going to orbit really ain’t the most technically difficult part of it’s development

Such as?

I’m talking solely about the technical aspects of the vehicle not its planned uses. What SpaceX is currently building is the first FFSCC powered, fully reusable, rapidly flyable, super heavy lift launch vehicle

Actual has remained the same actually for a long while now. Stats given for V1 and 2 are flown (sim) verified payloads for interim vehicles.

And no, they’ve not been accumulating tech debt. They’ve already demonstrated the architecture works

That’s because it’s a front loaded program. Milestones are not based on what % of total work is done but what work demands for each milestone

Yes demos still have to happen but they’re demos. Work in advance is well underway and is capital intensive (hence early dispersal)

(with the exception of Norway but they have copious amounts of oil money and a sovereign wealth fund)

Capitalism is not greed and I guarantee most of the examples you can give of better countries to the U.S. in terms of quality of life, low poverty and general progression are more capitalist than the U.S.

Capitalism IS that system. Is it perfect? No. But its the system that dragged us out of constant cycles of poverty and famine, enabled industrialisation, brought global prosperity and makes it so we can sit arguing online from cutting edge devices

How about you then? Can you list to me the crime committed?

Or or or or

You just don’t actually know. Or don’t have one

That’s a far simpler explanation

NASA is absolutely not. Issacman and the current administration of NASA are not anti science in any meaningful way

And the legality of what actually took places has not been determined and is more nuanced than one partisan democrat house report implies

PGMs is what I meant soz. PGMs and siderophiles cobalt and nickel from chrondites

Not the case

One of the biggest credible cases is the fact that rare earth elements that are carbon intensive to extract and hard to find on earth are easily accessible at a fraction of the environmental impact from space

That’s just not what it is and there are credible cases

Claims are presented but illegality is not proven and sources are unverified. Also, worth noting, that NASA did not have concrete leadership at that time, it does now

This is a partisan report. Not an independent, bipartisan or auditor one

Take it with a grain of salt. Same as you would if it was a republican partisan report.

Issacman is a serious person. And a tipping point style award would be beneficial for stuff like this

And what led you to take away that lesson?

And no, saying that a similar all up cost to SLS is different because it is by far the most ambitious launch vehicle at least in the past few decades is not meaningless

It’s not impossible to compare at all. And claiming it’s in an engineering death spiral is insane

It’s been climbing consistently towards its stated targets and the design is now consolidating very well

There were technical studies that found that but to claim it was consensus is overstating it. The congressional mandate drove the decision overall

There was no consensus that a SSDLV was the best path forward vs clean sheet of alternative options