5 ms·
Yes, human spaceflight is expensive, but SLS takes it to the next level. You have to admit that SLS has been a bit of a boondoggle, and is looking increasingly
by zizee 4y ago
Yes, human spaceflight is expensive, but SLS takes it to the next level. You have to admit that SLS has been a bit of a boondoggle, and is looking increasingly irrelevant.
Given falcon 9 has been launching crew dragon for a numbe of years, and Starship is the selected lander, and falcon heavy exists for heavy lift, why continue with the SLS?
I for one will enjoy watching the launch, and am excited by humans travelling to space, but would have like to see NASAs stop shovelling good money after bad.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago>why continue with the SLS? Thinly veiled welfare or a grandfathered in earmarks depending on your perspective.
- billfruit 4y agoIs the Delta-Heavy human rated? Can the Orion Capsule fly on it?
- sangnoir 4y ago> why continue with the SLS? Because having your human space program depend on a single launch provider is not great? This is not a SpaceX dig: for years, NASA had to rely exclusively on Roscosmos,and that wasn't ideal either. NASA can "waste" money now and ensure there's some level of competition across the board later, or be subject to gauging in each specialist niche in the future
- jacquesm 4y agoThat particular question was not very well received when posed by NASA administrators.
- zizee 4y agoYeah, I think almost everyone recognises the decisions were more about politics, than sending people to the moon. It's a real shame, as blatent waste just gives space detractors very valid arguments to reduce NASA's budget.
- nyokodo 4y ago> the decisions were more about politics, than sending people to the moon NASA is a political organization created by politicians for political purposes and remains beholden to politicians for its continued existence. The engineering innovation, science, and exploration of NASA programs are wonderful side effects. The bad news is that it’s always primarily political but the good news is that as long as the political purposes remain relevant then the overall budget is reasonably safe. With competition with China, and the burgeoning commercialization of space its relevance is likely to grow.
- nordsieck 4y ago> Given falcon 9 has been launching crew dragon for a numbe of years, and Starship is the selected lander, and falcon heavy exists for heavy lift, why continue with the SLS? I think this will be a much more pressing question (if?) after Starship starts flying regularly and finishes its demo mission to the moon as part of its Artemis obligations. It's easy to rationalize SLS with whataboutism while Starship is in development - particularly since SpaceX favors a hardware rich style. I'm not saying that this is good decision making, just that the arguments are plausible - the fig leaf is dense enough to do its job. But if Starship is able to achieve and/or surpass the flight rate and safety record of Falcon 9, it'll be much more difficult to criticize; and consequently, it'll be much more difficult to support continued SLS development. > I ... would have like to see NASAs stop shovelling good money after bad. I too would like to see that. But I'm not particularly optimistic.
- bottlepalm 4y agoIt’s funny how they rationalized SLS for the longest time because Falcon Heavy and Dragon 2 hadn’t flown yet.
- saalweachter 4y ago"Oh no we're a civilization with multiple vehicles capable of taking a person to space/the moon."
- bottlepalm 4y agoMore like oh no we’re 50 years behind on manned space flight because we decided to pour billions into defense contractors instead of actual progress. SLS is a worse system than Apollo, if anything we have regressed.
- jussion_zoonist 4y agoThat's all well and good but how many congressional districts have jobs working on Starship?