3 ms·
That’s my point, NASA could have used the money to build a reusable heavy lift system that is reusable and can launch more than once per year. Everything SLS is
by bottlepalm 4y ago
That’s my point, NASA could have used the money to build a reusable heavy lift system that is reusable and can launch more than once per year. Everything SLS is not. An incapable system that was billed as being flight ready in 2016. Who knows when the next one ever will be. What a disaster.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoSuch a reusable system would have to be built from scratch. It would delay the return to the moon by a decade or more. It may not even be cheaper. And it would be frought with massive engineering insecurity. Also you could say NASA is supporting SpaceX and others in doing something similar, which is better than having one single program in-house. SLS is the safest bet for a soonish return to the moon. Anything else is just speculation.
- bottlepalm 4y agoIf the problem is getting to the moon ‘soon’ then yes SLS is your answer. If the problem is getting to the moon cheaply and frequently then the SLS is most definitely not. Therefore we need SLS out of the way to fund real sustainable solutions for space exploration.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago"Soon" could be a factor of decades. NASA can't entirely depend on SpaceX nailing it with Starship, and I suspect the first launch with Humans on board is still years away, let alone launching to the moon. Also, if you look closer at the SLS program, there will be replacements which will make the launches cheaper eventually. Not reusable though.
- hef19898 4y agoAnd as for now we still don't know for sure whether or not reusable rockets are actually more cost efficient than single use ones.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoI think SpaceX has shown that they can be, at least for Falcon 9. But it took quite a while and there is on the order of a hundred times more demand for what Falcon 9 can do than what SLS can do.