3 ms·

Not explicitly mentioned: this saves NASA almost $2 billion, or half the cost of the actual spacecraft. The previous SLS-mandated launch was estimated to cost a

Not explicitly mentioned: this saves NASA almost $2 billion, or half the cost of the actual spacecraft. The previous SLS-mandated launch was estimated to cost about $2B per launch with no guarantee that there'd be an actual rocket available. Though, the savings mean it'll take longer to get there, 3.5 years vs 5 years.

inglor_cz 5y ago
SLS is an enormous boondoggle. People love to hate Musk, but without SpaceX and private space companies in general, we could forget about any significant progress in space activities. The price tag would be suffocating. It is also an interesting example of "throwing money at a problem does not always buy you a better solution". People too often come to conclusion that if some system is defective (e.g. schooling), more money would automatically help. Not necessarily.
- gpt5 5y ago
  We would have seen space progress. It wouldn’t have come for the US though.
- adrr 5y ago
  Because congress forced them to use Space shuttle components and NASA can't go to the open market and find other components. Space shuttle suppliers are fleecing NASA. Here's an example: The SLS/Space Shuttle RS-25 engines are $125mm a piece when they could buy RD-180 engines for $25m a piece. There are 4 engines on SLS and they are expendable.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Congress is positioned between "we actually need some functional space industry whose total expenditure cannot rise to high heavens" and "it would be so nice if some government-funded jobs were created in my constituency, so let us make the supply chains as complicated as possible". I am still positively surprised that they opened up some of the processes to competition.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    It's certainly an element, but NASA's culture today would simply never tolerate the rapid explosion cycles necessary to build a reusable rocket. SLS would be 50% cheaper maybe, but they would never have built the F9, much less a Starship.
enraged_camel 5y ago
>> Though, the savings mean it'll take longer to get there, 3.5 years vs 5 years. I thought this was no longer the case, as NASA had determined that Falcon Heavy was not going to have to travel to Venus to get a gravity boost from it first, and could go directly to Europa like SLS.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

inglor_cz 5y ago

SLS is an enormous boondoggle. People love to hate Musk, but without SpaceX and private space companies in general, we could forget about any significant progress in space activities. The price tag would be suffocating. It is also an interesting example of "throwing money at a problem does not always buy you a better solution". People too often come to conclusion that if some system is defective (e.g. schooling), more money would automatically help. Not necessarily.

gpt5 5y ago
We would have seen space progress. It wouldn’t have come for the US though.
adrr 5y ago
Because congress forced them to use Space shuttle components and NASA can't go to the open market and find other components. Space shuttle suppliers are fleecing NASA. Here's an example: The SLS/Space Shuttle RS-25 engines are $125mm a piece when they could buy RD-180 engines for $25m a piece. There are 4 engines on SLS and they are expendable.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Congress is positioned between "we actually need some functional space industry whose total expenditure cannot rise to high heavens" and "it would be so nice if some government-funded jobs were created in my constituency, so let us make the supply chains as complicated as possible". I am still positively surprised that they opened up some of the processes to competition.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  It's certainly an element, but NASA's culture today would simply never tolerate the rapid explosion cycles necessary to build a reusable rocket. SLS would be 50% cheaper maybe, but they would never have built the F9, much less a Starship.

enraged_camel 5y ago

>> Though, the savings mean it'll take longer to get there, 3.5 years vs 5 years. I thought this was no longer the case, as NASA had determined that Falcon Heavy was not going to have to travel to Venus to get a gravity boost from it first, and could go directly to Europa like SLS.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]