3 ms·
I think the Delta-X could have done the job, what went wrong was letting NASA taking control of it. Remember these are also the people who went with segmented
by ecpottinger 6y ago
I think the Delta-X could have done the job, what went wrong was letting NASA taking control of it. Remember these are also the people who went with segmented solid fuel boosters, these were the people who thought the VentureStar with three new techs that all had to work at the same time but rejected the designs that did not need as much new tech, these are the people who let the SLS design go forward.
The Delta-X was an interesting design until NASA was involved.
- mschuster91 6y agoThe Wikipedia article on DC-X is interesting. > In a post-accident report, NASA's Brand Commission blamed the accident on a burnt-out field crew who had been operating under on-again/off-again funding and constant threats of outright cancellation. That is the reason why SpaceX is so much more efficient and revolutionary, compared to what Boeing/ULA on US side and EADS/Ariane on EU are doing - they are cutting politics out of the equation and with it, a whole boatload of issues.
- cryptonector 6y agoContractors like Boeing for SLS generally have sweetheart cost+ deals. They have zero incentives to cut costs -- nay, they have an incentive to increase costs because their profits are the "plus". SpaceX isn't interested in a sweetheart subsidy deal. They are competing. That's why their contracts with NASA are fixed price: it gives SpaceX every incentive to keep costs down so as to maximize profit. Surprise! SpaceX is doing better than the competition that gets sweetheart deals. It should really not be a surprise to anyone though, but it probably is to some.