<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>dangerbird2</author><text>The problem is that for Starship to hit that $10M price point, SpaceX will have to demonstrate several as of yet unproven capabilities: In-space refueling (required for any missions outside LEO), safe and reliable re-entry from orbit, and fast turnaround for Starship to be launch-ready after landing. The last thing NASA needs is a glorified Space Shuttle 2.0 that takes months to be rebuilt after each re-entry, and has the constant risk of the crew burning up on re-entry. Fortunately, it&amp;#x27;s looking increasingly less likely that this will be the case, but NASA is right to not put all of its eggs in the Starship basket.&lt;p&gt;For what its worth, if Starship does succeed in being a cheap and re-usable super-heavy launcher, NASA can always just stop making SLS (presumably after giving the senators for Alabama sufficiently large bribes) and switch to Starship for super-heavy launches.</text><parent_chain><item><author>bryanlarsen</author><text>NASA just announced that they want to spend $1B per launch for SLS once a year until 2050.   For a capability less than what SpaceX might provide for $10M.&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s not sensible risk management, that&amp;#x27;s head in the sand denialism.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;arstechnica.com&amp;#x2F;science&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;nasa-wants-to-buy-sls-rockets-at-half-price-fly-them-into-the-2050s&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;arstechnica.com&amp;#x2F;science&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;nasa-wants-to-buy-sl...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>ncallaway</author><text>I’m kinda confused by the criticism of the industry and NASA not designing for Starship.&lt;p&gt;The author argues that NASA doesn’t understand Tempe game changer that Starship is, but I don’t think that’s accurate. I think the risk to NASA of assuming the benefits of Starship before it’s proven are just too high.&lt;p&gt;If NASA (or other industry players), assume Starship will deliver the benefits it promises, they to fundamentally alter their approach to space. But that leaves them with no backup plan in the event that Starship fails to materialize or deliver on its promises.&lt;p&gt;Whereas this other approach, of treating Starship like a much better vehicle but integrating it into its old processes, gives them an out if Starship fails in some way. Because they’re still using the “old” assumptions, they can fall back to other “old space” style providers.&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;p&gt;So, fundamentally, I think it’s not a lack of “understanding”, but a different calibration of “risk”. This also applies to many existing space companies, and I also think this gives opportunities for new companies that have a higher risk tolerance to take advantage.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Starship is still not understood</title><url>https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/10/28/starship-is-still-not-understood/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>onepointsixC</author><text>While I have much dislike for SLS, there is just no way in hell SpaceX will charge $10M for a launch. SpaceX have their own goals which they need funds for and they&amp;#x27;re not going to under cut their Falcon 9 that intensely like that. That&amp;#x27;s not to say that Starship won&amp;#x27;t be the best price per ton of payload to orbit. But let&amp;#x27;s stay reasonable here.&lt;p&gt;As for NASA remaining with SLS, for now at least, is due to a mix of congressional support, and the remaining unproven nature of starship. SLS allows members of congress say that they&amp;#x27;re supporting jobs. While SpaceX is pushing the limits of space engineering, Boeing and many other contractors have pushing the limits of political engineering. Hence the result that the same company that took us to the moon can&amp;#x27;t get into orbit, but is still maintaining contracts in spite of screwing up everything.</text><parent_chain><item><author>bryanlarsen</author><text>NASA just announced that they want to spend $1B per launch for SLS once a year until 2050.   For a capability less than what SpaceX might provide for $10M.&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s not sensible risk management, that&amp;#x27;s head in the sand denialism.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;arstechnica.com&amp;#x2F;science&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;nasa-wants-to-buy-sls-rockets-at-half-price-fly-them-into-the-2050s&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;arstechnica.com&amp;#x2F;science&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;nasa-wants-to-buy-sl...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>ncallaway</author><text>I’m kinda confused by the criticism of the industry and NASA not designing for Starship.&lt;p&gt;The author argues that NASA doesn’t understand Tempe game changer that Starship is, but I don’t think that’s accurate. I think the risk to NASA of assuming the benefits of Starship before it’s proven are just too high.&lt;p&gt;If NASA (or other industry players), assume Starship will deliver the benefits it promises, they to fundamentally alter their approach to space. But that leaves them with no backup plan in the event that Starship fails to materialize or deliver on its promises.&lt;p&gt;Whereas this other approach, of treating Starship like a much better vehicle but integrating it into its old processes, gives them an out if Starship fails in some way. Because they’re still using the “old” assumptions, they can fall back to other “old space” style providers.&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;p&gt;So, fundamentally, I think it’s not a lack of “understanding”, but a different calibration of “risk”. This also applies to many existing space companies, and I also think this gives opportunities for new companies that have a higher risk tolerance to take advantage.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Starship is still not understood</title><url>https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/10/28/starship-is-still-not-understood/</url></story>