5 ms·

> I think SLS is in the same boat, we have it operating inefficiently for civilian purposes, but it's a hot standby in case we need to manufacture a lot of ICBM

by zardo 5y ago

> I think SLS is in the same boat, we have it operating inefficiently for civilian purposes, but it's a hot standby in case we need to manufacture a lot of ICBMs in short order. There's very little applicable to both manned rockets and ICBMs. There's no mystery about why SLS is what is. It's built out of STS parts in order to keep money flowing to the same companies that supported the space shuttle.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
It is easier to re task someone with 20 years experience building manned rockets to make icbms than someone with 20 years experience in banking
- panick21_ 5y ago
  And its even 100x easier to say 'hey SpaceX build us 1000 rockets' or 'hey firefly' or 'hey relativity' or 'hey rocketlab' or 'hey blueorigin'. Or any other of other places aerospace engineers could work.
  - credit_guy 5y ago
    You may say "hey blueorigin" and get nothing, except maybe a lawsuit.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Why do you think it would be 100x easier to go to them then the defense industry companies contracted for the SLS? Eg Northrup, Boeing ect? Surely you see how it is more strategic to keep 10s of thousands of rocket engineers and manufacturers at the weapons companies busy with pretend work, than rely on Musk and Bezos converting their private companies to war machines in a time of need.
    - panick21_ 5y ago
      Those engineers are not that different. Just because Boeing also works on weapons doesn't magically mean that those engineers would be great at building weapons when they spent all their time on SLS. If you want engineers that have knowledge about a particular thing, then just pay them to work on that. And if for some strange reason you don't want to do that, then at least let them work on something that is not dumb and pointless. Non of the arguments why SLS makes sense, are credible to me. And its not historical either, as those jobs are not preserved for deep strategic reasons, but rather shallow political gain reasons.

by zardo 5y ago

s1artibartfast 5y ago

It is easier to re task someone with 20 years experience building manned rockets to make icbms than someone with 20 years experience in banking

panick21_ 5y ago
And its even 100x easier to say 'hey SpaceX build us 1000 rockets' or 'hey firefly' or 'hey relativity' or 'hey rocketlab' or 'hey blueorigin'. Or any other of other places aerospace engineers could work.
- credit_guy 5y ago
  You may say "hey blueorigin" and get nothing, except maybe a lawsuit.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Why do you think it would be 100x easier to go to them then the defense industry companies contracted for the SLS? Eg Northrup, Boeing ect? Surely you see how it is more strategic to keep 10s of thousands of rocket engineers and manufacturers at the weapons companies busy with pretend work, than rely on Musk and Bezos converting their private companies to war machines in a time of need.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    Those engineers are not that different. Just because Boeing also works on weapons doesn't magically mean that those engineers would be great at building weapons when they spent all their time on SLS. If you want engineers that have knowledge about a particular thing, then just pay them to work on that. And if for some strange reason you don't want to do that, then at least let them work on something that is not dumb and pointless. Non of the arguments why SLS makes sense, are credible to me. And its not historical either, as those jobs are not preserved for deep strategic reasons, but rather shallow political gain reasons.