3 ms·

Because then there would be no reason for SLS, and all the jobs it creates. At this point it's widely accepted the SLS design is already obsolete with no reuse

by grecy 4y ago

Because then there would be no reason for SLS, and all the jobs it creates. At this point it's widely accepted the SLS design is already obsolete with no reuse, is wildly expensive, and is extremely delayed. But it creates a lot of jobs in areas where congressmen want to get reelected, so they keep it going. Sooner or later it will die and Starship will take over, but it's going milk many more billions before then.

whatshisface 4y ago
SLS is not obsolete until Starship flies. That's probably coming soon, but it hasn't happened yet. If the delays hadn't happened it would have been around a few years before Starship and gotten some good use.
- grecy 4y ago
  > If the delays hadn't happened it would have been around a few years before Starship and gotten some good use It costs $2.2 BILLION per launch, and it only launches ~once per year. That doesn't sound like "some good use" to me.
yamtaddle 4y ago
When I visited the US Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL a couple years back, it was full of stuff promoting the SLS as the future of space flight, without any mention of other, non-NASA platforms. It felt like the kind of propaganda-driven alternative reality one might encounter in the Soviet Union—it's been plain for years that, at best, it's gonna be obsolete by the time it's ready, but here are all these pieces of marketing pretending it's not a giant waste of money and carefully avoiding mentioning any more-promising rockets. If a person came in without any idea what was going on in modern space flight, they'd have left the place having gotten entirely the wrong impression. It was the opposite of educational. Then again, most of it that wasn't run-down and/or broken just felt like a big, ugly, defense contractor trade show (complete with the kind of hilariously-terrible graphical collages & infographics that end up in military powerpoint slides), so that's in keeping with the rest of the vibe. Gross, definitely do not recommend. If you can convince them to let you into just the Saturn V hangar at half-off the normal ticket price, that'd be worth it.
szoszon 4y ago
I'm not sure if there really is any difference between milking the taxpayers by SpaceX or Boeing/ULA/NG/AR.
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  Despite the unfortunate presence of Apartheid Clyde, SpaceX has established a track record of actually building sustainable, reusable, reliable rockets at a reasonable cost and the traditional NASA contractor base represented by the other group has not.

by grecy 4y ago

whatshisface 4y ago

SLS is not obsolete until Starship flies. That's probably coming soon, but it hasn't happened yet. If the delays hadn't happened it would have been around a few years before Starship and gotten some good use.

grecy 4y ago
> If the delays hadn't happened it would have been around a few years before Starship and gotten some good use It costs $2.2 BILLION per launch, and it only launches ~once per year. That doesn't sound like "some good use" to me.

yamtaddle 4y ago

When I visited the US Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL a couple years back, it was full of stuff promoting the SLS as the future of space flight, without any mention of other, non-NASA platforms. It felt like the kind of propaganda-driven alternative reality one might encounter in the Soviet Union—it's been plain for years that, at best, it's gonna be obsolete by the time it's ready, but here are all these pieces of marketing pretending it's not a giant waste of money and carefully avoiding mentioning any more-promising rockets. If a person came in without any idea what was going on in modern space flight, they'd have left the place having gotten entirely the wrong impression. It was the opposite of educational. Then again, most of it that wasn't run-down and/or broken just felt like a big, ugly, defense contractor trade show (complete with the kind of hilariously-terrible graphical collages & infographics that end up in military powerpoint slides), so that's in keeping with the rest of the vibe. Gross, definitely do not recommend. If you can convince them to let you into just the Saturn V hangar at half-off the normal ticket price, that'd be worth it.

szoszon 4y ago

I'm not sure if there really is any difference between milking the taxpayers by SpaceX or Boeing/ULA/NG/AR.

KerrAvon 4y ago
Despite the unfortunate presence of Apartheid Clyde, SpaceX has established a track record of actually building sustainable, reusable, reliable rockets at a reasonable cost and the traditional NASA contractor base represented by the other group has not.