3 ms·
Seems pretty obvious why to me. Europe wants strategic independence in this area, but SpaceX is radically more cost effective and will remain so for the foresee
by TulliusCicero 4y ago
Seems pretty obvious why to me. Europe wants strategic independence in this area, but SpaceX is radically more cost effective and will remain so for the foreseeable future. That means that European companies that want to launch satellites will probably choose SpaceX, they won't want to throw money away.
- moffkalast 4y agoMeanwhile the US government is arguably doing the same with SLS. Nobody's expecting it to ever be cost effective for anything, but it provides said strategic independence.
- imtringued 4y agoSLS is cost effective in the segment of successfully going to the moon and coming back.
- moffkalast 4y agoIf Starship succeeds (which is what we're assuming in these discussions here anyway) then no, not even close. Crew Dragon + Starship transfer vehicle and lander would probably come in at a tenth the cost. Nevermind that the SLS programme assumes that Starship will succeed, otherwise they literally have no lander. So if SLS is to accomplish its goals it'll do so only in a world where it's obsolete.