4 ms·
The thing is, there wasn’t a better option than Starship. Starship scored the best technically and could be funded for the least amount. It’s not crazy to pick
by Robotbeat 3y ago
The thing is, there wasn’t a better option than Starship. Starship scored the best technically and could be funded for the least amount. It’s not crazy to pick the least technically risky option that’s simultaneously the lowest cost and highest capability.
- sigstoat 3y ago> It’s not crazy to pick the least technically risky option that’s simultaneously the lowest cost and highest capability. why buy one when you have two at (more than) twice the price?
- jvanderbot 3y agoThough it is not often appreciated re SpaceX/NASA, I side on the "competition is good" side of this argument. I don't think gov should act like a single consumer, instead they should err on the side of producing an ecosystem of solutions to spur an economy around the problem. So, two is cheaper than one long term, I hope.
- panick21_ 3y agoBecuase money isn't magic and that money going to a very unsuccessful company BlueOrigin is now not available for space suits, habs, surface operations and many other potentially useful things.