4 ms·
SLS never was going to enable space tourism. You have private companies doing that, and doing it better than Boeing. SLS is worse than existing rockets in ever
by Beached 6y ago
SLS never was going to enable space tourism. You have private companies doing that, and doing it better than Boeing.
SLS is worse than existing rockets in every way but one. Lift Capacity. Near term expected Space tourism doesnt need super heavy lift capacity. cheaper, faster, more reliable rockets already exist to get humans into LEO
While Falcon Heavy or Delta may be able to do some of the artemis missions, they currently cannot do all of them planned. Simply because of lift capacity or payload volume. However it will be interesting to see what happens to SLS if SpaceX gets starship going before SLS. Since SLS has already been in development for almost 10 years, and Boeing is in charge, many people think we will see an orbital Starship come to market before SLS hits orbit, and essentially rendering the entire SLS program a complete waste of time and money.
But dont worry, SLS will in no way slow down you getting to go to space, or your kids becoming belters. That timeline is independent of SLS, and may even be accelerated because of SLS failures.
- michaericalribo 6y agoI’m intrigued at the idea that this failure “puts the squeeze” on private companies to get their projects in order faster and more efficiently. Then again I’d rather see Elon or Jeff make the trip ahead of me, as a vote of confidence. I don’t want to get spaced bc of an asshole PM at deep blue! :D
- hwc 6y agoAn "orbital Starship" plus a successful orbital refueling is the real game changer. Goes from 150T to LEO TO 150T anywhere in the solar system. SLS block 2, which is another decade (?) away, can only send 45T to Earth escape velocity. And orbital refueling only costs six (?) times as much as a LEO flight.