5 ms·

Maybe the implementation needs to be more efficient, but I feel that Artemis, in principle, is a worthwhile endeavor. Not just for the United States, but for hu

Maybe the implementation needs to be more efficient, but I feel that Artemis, in principle, is a worthwhile endeavor. Not just for the United States, but for humanity. I would be proud to work on it.

SkittyDog 5y ago
The more efficient implementation is SpaceX's BFR. The United States will be able to buy BFR launches that carry bigger payloads than SLS, for a fraction of the cost. The SLS program provides no additional functionality over BFR. So we're spending billions on this giant Welfare Check to certain congressional districts and aerospace contractors. If we cancelled SLS, we could do a lot of other exciting things with that money.
- mrlonglong 5y ago
  Free healthcare and rebooted education for all. That'll never happen sadly.
  - zardo 5y ago
    NASA is a pretty small budget item compared to national healthcare.
  - SkittyDog 5y ago
    The United States couldn't do either of those with NASA's budget... And the SLS is not NASA's entire budget. I believe that space exploration is an incredibly important national priority, even if only as a means of maintaining our space-related military capabilities. Anyone who believes the US can abandon space travel and still be secure against present and future global threats is just a goddamn clown. But generally we shouldn't pay $2 for a bullet that we could buy elsewhere for $1. We could buy a lot more bullets if we bothered to try to contain our unit costs.
panick21_ 5y ago
This SLS rocket and the Orion vehicle is what is holding back programs like Artemis. For almost 20 years they have consumed 3 to 5 billion per year. That money invested differently could have financed amazing things. Even in the absence of Starship it is actually holding back the space program. Artemis a horrible architecture, its an architecture developed that was FORCED TO use existing SLS/Orion and Gateway programs. Free from constraints a very different architecture would have developed.

Maybe the implementation needs to be more efficient, but I feel that Artemis, in principle, is a worthwhile endeavor. Not just for the United States, but for humanity. I would be proud to work on it.

SkittyDog 5y ago

The more efficient implementation is SpaceX's BFR. The United States will be able to buy BFR launches that carry bigger payloads than SLS, for a fraction of the cost. The SLS program provides no additional functionality over BFR. So we're spending billions on this giant Welfare Check to certain congressional districts and aerospace contractors. If we cancelled SLS, we could do a lot of other exciting things with that money.

mrlonglong 5y ago
Free healthcare and rebooted education for all. That'll never happen sadly.
- zardo 5y ago
  NASA is a pretty small budget item compared to national healthcare.
- SkittyDog 5y ago
  The United States couldn't do either of those with NASA's budget... And the SLS is not NASA's entire budget. I believe that space exploration is an incredibly important national priority, even if only as a means of maintaining our space-related military capabilities. Anyone who believes the US can abandon space travel and still be secure against present and future global threats is just a goddamn clown. But generally we shouldn't pay $2 for a bullet that we could buy elsewhere for $1. We could buy a lot more bullets if we bothered to try to contain our unit costs.

panick21_ 5y ago

This SLS rocket and the Orion vehicle is what is holding back programs like Artemis. For almost 20 years they have consumed 3 to 5 billion per year. That money invested differently could have financed amazing things. Even in the absence of Starship it is actually holding back the space program. Artemis a horrible architecture, its an architecture developed that was FORCED TO use existing SLS/Orion and Gateway programs. Free from constraints a very different architecture would have developed.