4 ms·
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
by onepointsixC 5y ago
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're not going to under cut their Falcon 9 that intensely like that. That's not to say that Starship won't be the best price per ton of payload to orbit. But let's stay reasonable here.
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'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't get into orbit, but is still maintaining contracts in spite of screwing up everything.
- panick21_ 5y agoEven with Starship not existing SLS is a mistake. It doesn't do anything that you can't do in other ways. We already have distrusted rocket launch. SLS is holding the moon architecture hostage. There is simply no need for it.
- JulianMorrison 5y ago> they're not going to under cut their Falcon 9 that intensely Once Starship is tried and tested, I strongly suspect they will flat out deprecate Falcon. Fly the missions that have been paid and scheduled, and then bin them.