4 ms·

Yes, it's fair to say SpaceX has done innovative work. It's not fair to compare the cost of something that is an incremental improvement on a huge body of engin

by sidlls 4y ago

Yes, it's fair to say SpaceX has done innovative work. It's not fair to compare the cost of something that is an incremental improvement on a huge body of engineering knowledge to what NASA is doing, here. And this comparison always comes up in the context of "evil inefficient gubmint stealing our tax dollars versus awesome private corporation showing how it should be done".

jryle70 4y ago
> It's not fair to compare the cost of something that is an incremental improvement on a huge body of engineering knowledge to what NASA is doing, here. Just to be perfectly clear, are you saying SLS development also results in a lot of engineering knowledge? If so can you highlight what that knowledge would be -- propulsion, material, efficiency, avionics, manufacturing?
philwelch 4y ago
What NASA is doing here is an incremental improvement on a huge body of engineering knowledge, at best. SLS is a bunch of Shuttle technology assembled into a multi-billion-dollar disposable rocket, not to serve the needs of NASA but as a Congressional jobs program for legacy contractors.
TaylorAlexander 4y ago
From an engineering point of view, I don’t understand how you can imply that “what nasa is doing here” is more impressive than what SpaceX is doing. Perhaps I have misread your implication, but I believe the SpaceX rocket to be far more innovative than SLS. As far as government spending, I’m far from a free market advocate. But I would rather see the government spend money effectively. If SLS will cost, say, ten billion dollars over the next decade to complete three more flights, I’d rather see the government buy $1B in services from SpaceX to ensure they finish development of Starship, securing rides on a rocket which is 1/30th the launch costs, and then spend the other $9 billion on social housing programs to alleviate homelessness in the country. My point is not that I believe free markets will magically solve any problem we can imagine, but that a specific solution to the problem of heavy lift space vehicles that shows real promise is already nearly complete. I simply believe it would be a better use of funds to invest in that system than to continue to burn money on SLS. And the government understands this as it has awarded some money to SpaceX for moon missions with Starship. So they’re finding the much cheaper private option and the very expensive NASA option. And I just think that’s a poor use of funds given what each project promises.

by sidlls 4y ago

jryle70 4y ago

> It's not fair to compare the cost of something that is an incremental improvement on a huge body of engineering knowledge to what NASA is doing, here. Just to be perfectly clear, are you saying SLS development also results in a lot of engineering knowledge? If so can you highlight what that knowledge would be -- propulsion, material, efficiency, avionics, manufacturing?

philwelch 4y ago

What NASA is doing here is an incremental improvement on a huge body of engineering knowledge, at best. SLS is a bunch of Shuttle technology assembled into a multi-billion-dollar disposable rocket, not to serve the needs of NASA but as a Congressional jobs program for legacy contractors.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago

From an engineering point of view, I don’t understand how you can imply that “what nasa is doing here” is more impressive than what SpaceX is doing. Perhaps I have misread your implication, but I believe the SpaceX rocket to be far more innovative than SLS. As far as government spending, I’m far from a free market advocate. But I would rather see the government spend money effectively. If SLS will cost, say, ten billion dollars over the next decade to complete three more flights, I’d rather see the government buy $1B in services from SpaceX to ensure they finish development of Starship, securing rides on a rocket which is 1/30th the launch costs, and then spend the other $9 billion on social housing programs to alleviate homelessness in the country. My point is not that I believe free markets will magically solve any problem we can imagine, but that a specific solution to the problem of heavy lift space vehicles that shows real promise is already nearly complete. I simply believe it would be a better use of funds to invest in that system than to continue to burn money on SLS. And the government understands this as it has awarded some money to SpaceX for moon missions with Starship. So they’re finding the much cheaper private option and the very expensive NASA option. And I just think that’s a poor use of funds given what each project promises.