• R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    SLS is made out of spare shuttle parts and has no reusability, it was also constructed in part by Boeing, known for being the worst of the govvie contractors at making a feasible product. They can’t even make a reliable military aircraft and I worked on theirs so I’ve seen their modern engineering in action. It’s a joke. They’re newest attempt at spacecraft have failed even more miserably than starship.

    SpaceX doesn’t have the newer starship craft functional, but we’ve already used their falcon/dragon system to get off of using Russian spacecraft to visit the ISS and prior to crewed missions were sending them up all the time to restock.

    The SLS is just a bigger and more wasteful version of Apollo, useful to get a group of people to the moon but without enough equipment to set up shop permanently. Not to mention the insane cost because you can’t reuse the spacecraft. US taxpayers have saved so much from not having to fund NASA building their own spacecraft and leaving them to what they do best. Scientific research and mission planning/execution. Everytime a falcon lands successfully the cost per launch goes down, you’ll see the same savings once the kinks get worked out with starship versus SLS’s up front cost of throwing the thing into the ocean everytime.

    SpaceX is to NASA what Lockheed Martin is to the Air Force, a platform manufacturer. The Navy doesn’t build their own jets, they just put out the requirements and let the contractors do what they do best. This is the same concept here.

    • Tar_Alcaran
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      And this is a nice advertisement, but right now, SLS did exactly what it had to, completing it’s mission entirely, safely and correctly.

      Starship can’t even get into space.

      The promises sound great, but they’re only promises so far. Worse, theyre Musk promises and you should probably have a look at all the things Musk promised and didn’t deliver.

      • JohnDClay
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What do you call space? It got above the karman line.

        • Tar_Alcaran
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s a fair point. I stand corrected that Starship did indeed get into space briefly before exploding.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            On its second flight in the most powerful rocket ever built. How many flights did it take SLS to get to where it is now - including all the space shuttle launches upon which it is based?

            SLS is the project that is running over budget and behind schedule here. Starship won’t be ready in time for the scheduled 2025 trip to the moon, but nothing else will be ready either - the moon landing schedule was always overly ambitious. Starship is doing pretty well along its own development timescale.

            However Starship is still miles and miles away from being ready for Artemis. They need to get into space. They need to do cryogenic fuel transfers in orbit (never been done). They need to turn Starship into a human rated moon lander (SpaceX have no experience here). NASA are supposed to be working with them to provide their experience, particularly with human life support, however AFAIK they haven’t even started collaborating in earnest yet.

            • Pennomi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s hardly fair to include all shuttle launches in SLS development. It’s virtually an entire new system, minus the engines.