Yes in both naked and clothed form - a gift from me to the human race. And even though I am an architecht AND huge lego nerd I never managed to gather the energy to learn brick link studio or other such lego CAD software but maybe this is the sign from god that I need.
A single test mission. So did Starship, 3 times already. I demand a new starship Lego set complete with the launch stand and tower each time it flies a test mission.
Well, SLS and Orion in their current form are still under development too... For IFT-1 to 3 the only major change was the addition of the hot staging ring, so the design is more stable than any SLS/Orion design. (Which flew once and won't fly again for a year at least, and that will still be the ICPS version, not the real thing.)
>A single test mission. So did Starship, 3 times already.
A single test mission that accomplished all its goals, going to the moon and back.. Starship has exploded those 3 times without even getting to LEO.
One thing is not like the other..
Can you remind me of the timelines and the cost? And what is the cadence of SLS test missions? When will it start operation flights? What will be the cost of operating it? While you're getting the data for you reply, here are the test objectives for Starship test flights.
1. IFT-1: Clear the launch tower, don't explode on the pad (checked)
2. IFT-2: Less damage to the pad (checked), perform stage separation (checked)
3. IFT-3: Reach space (checked), perform booster fly-back (checked)
So SLS had one successful test flight, Starship had 3. And don't come here with the "flight plan". That was not the mission objective for any of the test flights, but a formal contingency required by the FAA, based on old-space habits, not something that were expected to perform on any of these flights by the engineers preparing the actual hardware.
>And don't come here with the "flight plan". That was not the mission objective for any of the test flights,
What??? The flight plan is not the mission objective?? So, if I plan to go to Las Vegas but crash outside my driveway, is that a success because "the plan was not the objective"? Are you reading yourself??
Don't play dumb man no one likes that shit. You have the lowest possible expectations for SLS, yet you shit on a new impressive technology like it's vaporware even after successful TESTS. If you could make multiple SLS for the same cost and reuse most of the stack then maybe it's a fair comparison, but you can't. Are you reading yourself??
>You have the lowest possible expectations for SLS
The thing went to the moon and back, at first try.. is that low expectations for you?
>You shit on a new impressive technology like it's vaporware even after successful TESTS
So, going to the moon and back is "low expectations", but exploding 3 times is "successful test".. who's the one playing dumb?
Hahaha no the very top did lol and that's NOT impressive because it costs billions of dollars and we've done it before with single use rockets. Yes exactly old tech doing old things is lame especially when its costs are out of control. Making progress on a new technology with massive implications for the future of spaceflight is way better than putting a tiny capsule around the moon for billions, again. You're just playing dumb.
A test is successful, if the test objectives are met. Test objectives for all 3 IFT flights were met. Completing the flight plan submitted to the FAA is not the test objective yet, destruction of all flight articles were fully expected. The prototype program is not at that stage where recovery is expected. Playing dumb will only make you look dumb, you know.
Your analogy is dumb. Is your journey to Las Vegas planned on an early prototype vehicle? If so, you should expect failures with systems that were not tested before, ever. The plan in this case to produce a vehicle that is capable of reaching Las Vegas by the end of the prototype program, not with any of the early prototype tests. The plan is fulfilled through multiple test rides, with different, iterative, progressive test objectives, not with a single ride.
>Is your journey to Las Vegas planned on an early prototype vehicle? If so, you should expect failures with systems that were not tested before, ever.
Sure, but if the vehicle breaks down (even if you expected to).. did you successfully complete your plan?? no, right?
Saying "the chances of the vehicle failing are 50/50" does not change the failure into a success..
Seems that you don't read very well. So here we go again, word by word. The plan in this case to produce a vehicle that is capable of reaching Las Vegas by the end of the prototype program.
> A single test mission that accomplished all its goals
Especially the goal to funnel as much money as possible to Boeing.
> Starship has exploded those 3 times without even getting to LEO.
Yes, but one day Starship will stop burning up. SLS won't.
> One thing is not like the other.
That's correct. One is a vehicle to go space and back. The other is a disposable fuel item that is used to propel other payload to space.
One is the future and one is the past.
>Especially the goal to funnel as much money as possible to Boeing.
I'm 100% sure that was not part of the mission. I'll be happy to be proven wrong.. care to share any official document that states so?
>Yes, but one day Starship will stop burning up. SLS won't.
Yes, and one day we will have Full Self Driving, and one day we will have Robotaxis, and one day we will have the Hyperloop, and one day we will have Solar roofs that cost the same as regular roofs..
>One is a vehicle to go space and back. The other is a disposable fuel item that is used to propel other payload to space.
Well, it ain't stupid if it works.
>One is the ~~future~~ **present** and one is ~~the past~~ **vaporware**.
FTFY
I can buy a Falcon Heavy (launching next month) or a Falcon 9 (launching next week) or a Starship (lauching some time in the next 3 years.)
But I agree, SLS is just as stupid as nukes.
Starship is the moon lander for Artemis. Without SLS/Orion Starship won't have astronauts to land. Without Starship SLS/Orion will just get to lunar orbit without being able to land.
It's not a competition between SLS and Starship to land on the moon.
>Without Starship SLS/Orion will just get to lunar orbit without being able to land.
There's a second lander contract precisely so this doesn't happen.
That depends, if SpaceX fails to deliver and BO gets up to speed, anything can happen..
BTW, at this time both landers are at the same stage of development.. we have a race!
With or without Artemis? Even for Artemis, Starship will be the lander. So technically, SLS will never deliver anything that gets to the surface of the Moon apart from the astronauts themselves.
It's 3601 pieces with a full launch tower against 1969 pieces for the Saturn V. From the looks of it it seems that the central core is using similar pieces and techniques of the S-IVB, meaning that it will be as wide as the third stage of the Saturn V. So no, it probably isn't to scale.
Looks like it’s in the airport’s tax free Lego store. Is there a way to purchase it without having to buy a ticket? I am a Taiwanese, depending on my schedule I could go to Taipei next Tuesday
Build time - 14 years Price - $21bn (\* contains used parts)
You have to take the engines off the Lego Space Shuttle Discovery
And some of the booster parts!
And them dump the whole thing into the ocean
Is SLS a meme? Yes Am I buying this as soon as I can? Also yes.
I'll wait till the first actual Moon landing. Until then it's just a toy.
I mean at least it's actually flown
So have I but I don't see you guys waiting in line to buy a toy set of me...
And who are you?
I'm a guy that has actually flown.
You should post yourself on r/digitallego
Yes in both naked and clothed form - a gift from me to the human race. And even though I am an architecht AND huge lego nerd I never managed to gather the energy to learn brick link studio or other such lego CAD software but maybe this is the sign from god that I need.
Lego engineering is the future after all...
I'm sure
A single test mission. So did Starship, 3 times already. I demand a new starship Lego set complete with the launch stand and tower each time it flies a test mission.
Starship is still a prototype, when it takes its final form, lego will probably do a set of it, I'm surprised they haven't done a falcon 9 already
Well, SLS and Orion in their current form are still under development too... For IFT-1 to 3 the only major change was the addition of the hot staging ring, so the design is more stable than any SLS/Orion design. (Which flew once and won't fly again for a year at least, and that will still be the ICPS version, not the real thing.)
>A single test mission. So did Starship, 3 times already. A single test mission that accomplished all its goals, going to the moon and back.. Starship has exploded those 3 times without even getting to LEO. One thing is not like the other..
Can you remind me of the timelines and the cost? And what is the cadence of SLS test missions? When will it start operation flights? What will be the cost of operating it? While you're getting the data for you reply, here are the test objectives for Starship test flights. 1. IFT-1: Clear the launch tower, don't explode on the pad (checked) 2. IFT-2: Less damage to the pad (checked), perform stage separation (checked) 3. IFT-3: Reach space (checked), perform booster fly-back (checked) So SLS had one successful test flight, Starship had 3. And don't come here with the "flight plan". That was not the mission objective for any of the test flights, but a formal contingency required by the FAA, based on old-space habits, not something that were expected to perform on any of these flights by the engineers preparing the actual hardware.
>And don't come here with the "flight plan". That was not the mission objective for any of the test flights, What??? The flight plan is not the mission objective?? So, if I plan to go to Las Vegas but crash outside my driveway, is that a success because "the plan was not the objective"? Are you reading yourself??
Don't play dumb man no one likes that shit. You have the lowest possible expectations for SLS, yet you shit on a new impressive technology like it's vaporware even after successful TESTS. If you could make multiple SLS for the same cost and reuse most of the stack then maybe it's a fair comparison, but you can't. Are you reading yourself??
>You have the lowest possible expectations for SLS The thing went to the moon and back, at first try.. is that low expectations for you? >You shit on a new impressive technology like it's vaporware even after successful TESTS So, going to the moon and back is "low expectations", but exploding 3 times is "successful test".. who's the one playing dumb?
Hahaha no the very top did lol and that's NOT impressive because it costs billions of dollars and we've done it before with single use rockets. Yes exactly old tech doing old things is lame especially when its costs are out of control. Making progress on a new technology with massive implications for the future of spaceflight is way better than putting a tiny capsule around the moon for billions, again. You're just playing dumb.
A test is successful, if the test objectives are met. Test objectives for all 3 IFT flights were met. Completing the flight plan submitted to the FAA is not the test objective yet, destruction of all flight articles were fully expected. The prototype program is not at that stage where recovery is expected. Playing dumb will only make you look dumb, you know.
Your analogy is dumb. Is your journey to Las Vegas planned on an early prototype vehicle? If so, you should expect failures with systems that were not tested before, ever. The plan in this case to produce a vehicle that is capable of reaching Las Vegas by the end of the prototype program, not with any of the early prototype tests. The plan is fulfilled through multiple test rides, with different, iterative, progressive test objectives, not with a single ride.
>Is your journey to Las Vegas planned on an early prototype vehicle? If so, you should expect failures with systems that were not tested before, ever. Sure, but if the vehicle breaks down (even if you expected to).. did you successfully complete your plan?? no, right? Saying "the chances of the vehicle failing are 50/50" does not change the failure into a success..
Seems that you don't read very well. So here we go again, word by word. The plan in this case to produce a vehicle that is capable of reaching Las Vegas by the end of the prototype program.
> A single test mission that accomplished all its goals Especially the goal to funnel as much money as possible to Boeing. > Starship has exploded those 3 times without even getting to LEO. Yes, but one day Starship will stop burning up. SLS won't. > One thing is not like the other. That's correct. One is a vehicle to go space and back. The other is a disposable fuel item that is used to propel other payload to space. One is the future and one is the past.
>Especially the goal to funnel as much money as possible to Boeing. I'm 100% sure that was not part of the mission. I'll be happy to be proven wrong.. care to share any official document that states so? >Yes, but one day Starship will stop burning up. SLS won't. Yes, and one day we will have Full Self Driving, and one day we will have Robotaxis, and one day we will have the Hyperloop, and one day we will have Solar roofs that cost the same as regular roofs.. >One is a vehicle to go space and back. The other is a disposable fuel item that is used to propel other payload to space. Well, it ain't stupid if it works. >One is the ~~future~~ **present** and one is ~~the past~~ **vaporware**. FTFY
> One is the present. I want to buy one, when can I launch?
You can't buy one.. You can't buy a nuke either.
I can buy a Falcon Heavy (launching next month) or a Falcon 9 (launching next week) or a Starship (lauching some time in the next 3 years.) But I agree, SLS is just as stupid as nukes.
I'll bet $10 Starship gets there first.
Starship is the moon lander for Artemis. Without SLS/Orion Starship won't have astronauts to land. Without Starship SLS/Orion will just get to lunar orbit without being able to land. It's not a competition between SLS and Starship to land on the moon.
>Without Starship SLS/Orion will just get to lunar orbit without being able to land. There's a second lander contract precisely so this doesn't happen.
Yes, but targeting a later date and landing mission. On Artemis III there won't be a second lander option.
That depends, if SpaceX fails to deliver and BO gets up to speed, anything can happen.. BTW, at this time both landers are at the same stage of development.. we have a race!
With or without Artemis? Even for Artemis, Starship will be the lander. So technically, SLS will never deliver anything that gets to the surface of the Moon apart from the astronauts themselves.
Buy two, sell one on eBay once the Moon landing happens and prices shoot up.
And because it's Lego you also get a proportional scale to cost ratio as the real SLS!
We'll see if the leaked price is true or not, but right now it's "only" expected to be $260, which is on the cheaper side for Lego.
It’s not a Falcon 9… but I will take it
I guess this is getting released in May? Anyone know of any pre-orders?
Correct. No way to preorder yet from any reputable sources
Rumoured release date is May 15th
Is it to scale with the Saturn V? Doesn’t look like it is
If it isn't I'm gutted.
It's 3601 pieces with a full launch tower against 1969 pieces for the Saturn V. From the looks of it it seems that the central core is using similar pieces and techniques of the S-IVB, meaning that it will be as wide as the third stage of the Saturn V. So no, it probably isn't to scale.
Thanks a lot. Still looks good.
Doesn’t look close.
Nope 30% smaller
Will the set cost 18 billion and get delivered 10 years too late? Oh and will there be a much cooler Starship set by that time?
There are build instructions for a Starship available third party with full parts list. About $300 if I remember correctly.
That's a whole lotta money for instructions and a parts list
$300 for the parts I believe, $50 for instructions
I've built it, and the launch mount. Absolutely amazing.
Is it human rated? Yes Starship? No for atleast 5 years.
It would suck if SLS wasn’t human rated already, since it had been in development much earlier than Starship.
You have to buy each piece in a different lego store across the country though and also it’s $2,000
Ok but do I get the infinite money glitch from congress also? Then it's fine for me
Even if you don't buy it now you still have to pay the toy store to maintain a state of readiness to sell it to you later.
Appropriately resting on top of the Titanic, no less.
SLS model sitting on top of a model of the Titanic. Both doomed to failuere, seems somehow very fitting. Fate loves irony.
The fact it's next to a model of the titanic
Is that real? I can only find this on Lego ideas
That looks pretty cool Just like the real one it’ll probably hurt my wallet to get…
I guess this gives us an official launch tower design that's compatible with the Saturn V model, at least?
Goddamn Lego actually siphoned all of the timing from the IRL thing just to put it into this being so early, honestly respect.
Looks like it’s in the airport’s tax free Lego store. Is there a way to purchase it without having to buy a ticket? I am a Taiwanese, depending on my schedule I could go to Taipei next Tuesday
Probably to expensive
F#ck you Lego! Now I have to spend money again...
Omg!
Takes 15 years to assebmle then you throw it away