Cheaper isn’t always better. NASA programs like LM’s SLS don’t get to fail on live TV or they lose their budget, so they’re over engineered and built slowly which leads to higher costs. But SLS also hasn’t failed on any launch, unlike SpaceX programs.
Comment on NASA
Wanderer@lemm.ee 3 weeks agoStarship is coming in a lot cheaper than SLS and SlS had a lot of legacy projects already paid for.
The fact of the matter is the real brainwashed people here are the ones that think Elon Musks Spacex isn’t a revolutionary company. People are talking about rocketry like they are experts but don’t know anything about it.
Giving up on Shuttle and switching to Falcon 9 instead of developing something new was the best use of money Nasa could have done.
Just yea keep circle jerking how Musk is the worst person in every possible way, at least you’re cool!
CptEnder@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Wanderer@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Cheaper isn’t always better no.
Which is why it is so impressive that the Falcon 9 is cheaper than the competition and more reliable.
SLS is still in early days so it’s hard to compare as it lacks numbers of reluability. But any rocket that has flown a lot whether it be the shuttle or even the might Soyuz. Falcon 9 is the most reliably rocket in the world and the cheapest.
If NASA can’t build rockets as cheap or as reliable as space X then I think the argument is that the SLS is a waste of money.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
SpaceX is a truly revolutionary company, and people often do not give them remotely the credit they deserve for how revolutionary they are because they’re blinded by they’re hatred of Musk.
But Musk is also a huge piece of shit. Both of those things can be true.