7 ms·
In the absence of SpaceX,"worth" was basically defined as "how important tax payers find this vs what it costs." Now we actually have a market framework capable
by ralusek 4y ago
In the absence of SpaceX,"worth" was basically defined as "how important tax payers find this vs what it costs." Now we actually have a market framework capable of answering this question. Assuming Starship works, then the answer is obviously "no."
- cdot2 4y agoI don't think we should gamble our human space flight program on a single rocket. Having multiple separate development programs sounds like a good idea.
- pstuart 4y agoAgreed. While I'd like to see NASA do it right, I'd settle for a couple more companies giving SpaceX real competition. Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic do not appear to be those companies.
- Yizahi 4y agoThe problem is that SLS is inherently unsafe for humans. Much more so than any possible alternative, real or paper rockets included. Almost all those money left for actual engineering probably were spent on duct taping this monstrosity to be even a little acceptable for human rated flight.
- sashahrzg 4y agoSource on it being unsafe for human flight?
- Yizahi 4y agoThe most obvious factor can be observed by any amateur at the SLS photo - it looks like two long white thingies strapped to the sides of the rocket :) . Joking aside - Space Shuttle was deemed about as safe as 1 in 60 flights by two different commissions. This SLS uses exact same hardware in general, and can't be much safer than an inherently unsafe Shuttle. That's unfortunate fact of life. I sincerely hope that no crew would be harmed flying this thing.
- ncmncm 4y agoNot to defend SLS, but it anyway has an escape tower STS lacked.
- hef19898 4y agoAnd since Starship has yet to reach orbit, one could say it's to early say.
- panick21_ 4y agoArtemis already depends on Starship. So if Starship fails, Artemis fails.
- aero-glide2 4y agoNot accurate - NASA will ask someone else to build the lunar lander under LETS contract. Starship HLS is a complex system which requires half a dozen launches, a simpler lander with lower payload capacity has an higher chance of being realized.
- generj 4y agoNot when the alternate lander options don’t even have enough performance to land and take off the moon if the astronauts mass is included. The lower payload requirements mean Starship HLS requires fewer fuel replenishment launches, so an apples to apples comparison makes Starship slightly less risky, especially as the other landers rely on launchers far less developed than Starship.
- panick21_ 4y agoThose other landers are pure fantasy as of right now and are not remotely financed at all. If anything so far its a purely political move so NASA can tell congress 'sure we do sort of still pretend to have multiple landers'.
- karkisuni 4y agoSLS can get about 27 tons to the moon, Falcon Heavy about 20 tons. Sure, redesigning the plans to handle splitting between two launches is time and money, but two falcon heavies is only ~$300M base price. SLS is a waste even without starship.
- ff317 4y ago
- pfdietz 4y agoIt's obviously "no" even without Starship, since Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy result in cheaper architectures.