[sashahrzg]

I'm not sure why a Twitter link is the source for this on HN, https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/08/29/launch-attempt-scr... is the proper source for this news. It should also be mentioned this is NOT a major failure. Important launches like this often see delays, often the first launch of a new system will see multiple delays. This rocket alone has cost billions and NASA wants to ensure that money is not wasted.

[natch]

This is indeed minor. The major failure is the entire program itself being set up without reusability and with a miserably slow launch cadence.

[JshWright]

Whether or not the program is a failure depends on what you view the end goal of SLS to be.

If you look at it as a federal jobs program that just happens to result in a rocket, then I'd say it was pretty successful...

[signatoremo]

They can still be a job program and also advance the state of the art of space exploration in material, propulsion, in orbit refueling, ISRU, etc. Instead they end up with a rocket using old technology engine, costing $4B a piece, being able to launch at most once a year. It’s a missed opportunity, charitably speaking.

[natch]

They could have had that number of jobs by building out rooftop solar or other beneficial projects.

[lokar]

I assume it has also sustained a large flow of campaign donations.

[thrdbndndn]

How is one "proper" while the other is not? The blog URL is literally in the tweet, and it's NASA's official account.

Of course if you're doing citation for your paper the later one would be better but this is "just" posting on HN. I would even go so far as to say I prefer the tweet link so I can easily retweet, and no information is lost.

[verdverm]

It says as such in the site guidelines

> Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[koheripbal]

I prefer the blog link as it's more informative.

It's not usually useful to debate what's "proper". Debating utility is a better use of everyone's time, as you point out.

[shkkmo]

Except Twitter is actively hostile to non-logged-in users which makes the Twitter link much worse when there is an actual underlying source.

[crawl_soever]

Twitter also completely blocked its static HTML site a few years ago. They insist that we enable JS to view plain-text content that I can directly view on the blog without JS.

[belter]

True. I always use this: https://nitter.net/NASA/status/1564232429279272962

Now if you try to post a Nitter link on HN, it changes to the Twitter link. Why not sure.

[thrdbndndn]

I never have any problem viewing a single tweet on Twitter without logging in, sans ones that are marked "NSFW".

Can you please explain what you see that are "hostile"? I opened this tweet RN in a guest profile and it looks exactly the same as the one I saw when I logged in.

[shkkmo]

Huh, I've had Twitter repeatedly prompt me to log in, fail to load tweets and misbehave in all kinds of other ways.

However, even if Twitter didn't have a history of such problems, having to click an extra link is annoying to the majority of users, which is part of why the HN Guidelines say to always link to the original source:

> Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[belter]

Every time you try to see the link you get after a few seconds a window:

"See what’s happening

Join Twitter to get the full story with all the live commentary."

And you have two options SignUp, Login, or F#^&^#@&^ :-) Now if you don't see it, because you have script blockers, that is a recognition of the interface hostility.

[thrdbndndn]

I see that, but that doesn't affect me to see the tweet in anyway [1], does it?

[1] https://i.imgur.com/tfEwSgT.png

[belter]

I am not talking about the one at bottom, but the annoying popup...

"Twitter disables browsing without an account" - https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/p62que/twitt...

[sashahrzg]

Official would have been a better word. In my defense I had just woken up when I posted this.

[dang]

Changed from https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1564232429279272962. Thanks!

It's not as if a Twitter link is "the" source - it's just stochastic what gets submitted, what gets noticed, what version of a story happens to make the front page. Sometimes we change the URL to a better one if we notice it.

[Fatnino]

Scrubs and delays are the rule not the exception with space launches.

Shuttle was like this too. Not really a surprise as SLS is just a shuttle remix.

[Invictus0]

In the age of SpaceX, a rocket costing billions is a waste of money before it ever takes off.

[sashahrzg]

How much do you think starship launches will cost? Hint, it's billions

[brandonagr2]

Are you trying to equate the cost of the entire development program with a single launch?

Hint, SpaceX has an assembly line and is cranking out new starships and boosters every couple months while SLS will launch only every few years and then be chunked into the ocean with a hardware cost in the billions PER launch.

[sashahrzg]

No I'm not equating the two. A current starship launch with all the testing and support systems is likely well above a billion dollars right now. Eventual launches will bring the price down, but as we haven't seen a full launch it's hard to tell.

[jlmorton]

Note that SpaceX has received ~$10 billion in total investment since inception, and receives about $2b in revenue annually from launches.

We don't have insight into SpaceX finances, but this should give you an upper bound on how much money SpaceX is spending on something.

This $10 billion in total investment and annual revenue has financed the development of Falcon 9, Dragon, Dragon 2 and Crew Dragon, Starship, launch pads at Vandenburg, Boca Chica, and two at the Cape, Merlin, Raptor, Starlink development, thousands of Starlink satellites, and all the associated ground infrastructure, recovery and recovery ships, and everything else.

While we don't have any hard numbers on what the Starship development program has cost thus far, it's not likely to be in the billions.

[Isinlor]

SpaceX is contracted to deliver people to the Moon surface for 2.8 billion dollars total (development + actual mission).

To do it they need around 6 launches for refueling in orbit.

The very upper limit on a single Starship launch is 0.5 billion.

[exsf0859]

That's shortsightedly frugal accounting.

Developing a working Starship is worth a lot to SpaceX. They could go deeply into debt on the first six launches, and make it up later.

[panick21_]

Its a huge difference designing a system that you know can only launch 1 a year at best and maybe 2 in a decade compared to a system architecture that is designed for 100s of launches.

For SLS, the hardware cost alone is 1.5 billion. Starship has development cost, but I can guarantee you that the pure cost of ordering the hardware didn't cost 1.5 billion $.

[fallingknife]

> Eventual launches will bring the price down

And this is not even a possibility with the non-reusable SLS, which makes continuing it seem kind of crazy.

[btilly]

I think it will likely cost under $10 million.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/11/elon-musk-spacexs-starship-i...

Do you have a source behind your estimate that a fully reusable Starship launch is over 20x the cost of a partially reusable Falcon 9 launch?

[gmiller123456]

I certainly would not consider Musk a reliable source.

[Isinlor]

SpaceX is contracted to deliver people to the Moon surface for 2.8 billion dollars total (development + actual mission).

To do it they need around 6 launches for refueling in orbit.

The very upper limit on a single Starship launch is 0.5 billion (2.8/6).

[zardo]

The upper limit, with the assumption they don't lose money on the contract.

[sashahrzg]

Yes and full self driving will be ready late next year. Elon musk is a liar about everything he works on. The launch cost will not reach 10 million until later into the program, with the 1 million dollar launch cost estimate being a fallacy. Launch costs for the first 5 rockets will be massive.

[terafo]

Where these massive launch costs are coming from? All Starship's Raptor V2 engines COMBINED cost less than refurbishment of ONE RS-25 engine. There are four RS-25 engines on SLS.

[btilly]

In other words you don't have a source other than your confidence that Musk is a liar?

[baq]

doubters had a major goalpost moving moment the first time spacex landed a falcon 9 booster. then they had another when they landed on a barge. a much smaller one when fairings were recovered. if starship misses the cost by 5x it'll still be cheaper to launch than everything other than a recoverable falcon 9 and will completely dominate all aspects of space launch business (except non-US national security payloads).

[philistine]

The real race is not whether or not SLS or Starship will launch first, but how many times will Starship launch between Artemis I and Artemis II.

The more launches, the cheaper Starship gets.

[Invictus0]

LOL! More than a billion dollars to refill a rocket with fuel? You are bugging.

[sashahrzg]

That's not how a launch cost is calculated. The cost of the rocket's construction is included in every launch, hence the cost going down with subsequent launches. RND costs must also be included, as well as support system costs, staff costs, etc. Also, current starship designs require refurbishment between launches, as well as an expensive set of checks and tests on systems. 1 billion as the cost for the first fully test launch is not at all out of the ballpark.

[Isinlor]

SpaceX is contracted to deliver people to the Moon surface for 2.8 billion dollars total (development + actual mission).

To do it they need around 6 launches for refueling in orbit.

Therefore, the very upper limit on a single Starship launch is 0.5 billion (2.8/6).

And that's without development cost of Starship HLS.

Single SLS launch cost without Orion, including development, will be around 4 billion dollars.

20 billion overall for SLS development + 20 billion for Orion development.