• GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    SLS is a disposable product based on existing technology. Starship intends to be reusable and is an evolution based on tech developed in the last 20 years.

    Neither private companies nor the DoD is interested in using the SLS once it has been proven in the Artemis project, and given the project is based on the time-honored tradition of government pork, it’s doubtful it will ever be economical. Every indication I can see is that the Blue Origin and SLS contract are to hedge bets in case Starship fails. After all, we know SLS will work, but it will always be cost-ineffective just based on the nature of the beast. Blue Origin might work out, but they’ve been around as long as SpaceX and have achieved suborbital flights so far. Meanwhile, SpaceX has had 332 successful launches in 14 years, with 2 failures. Their team seems to know what they’re doing.

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      As I say elsewhere, Starship is a scale model of an empty shell into which the HLS might one day be built. HLS has not been built. HLS doesn’t even exist as a non-functioning mockup. HLS has not even been designed. The vehicle to carry HLS into space has not been built. The vehicle that will refuel HLS when it eventually has been built, has not been built.

      HLS has so far cost 3 billion, and doesn’t exist even slightly. All that exists is a scaled down model of an empty shell and a scaled down model of the booster that has not lifted even a single pound of simulated cargo off the ground.

      I’m not saying Starship won’t be a great heavy-lift craft for LEO or maybe GEO cargo one day, but HLS does not exist in any way other than CGI renders, and it has cost 3 billion government dollars so far, and many more other funds.

      And that’s not to say I don’t think Falcon isn’t a great machine. It’s a machine that runs entirely on unsustainable artificial demand, but I’m a massive proponent of burning the private venture capital of overly-rich idiots to fund useful spacetravel.

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Well, that dollar value seems to be a big deal to you, but you brush aside the costs of SLS, and completely ignore the many billions spent to make the SLS components even possible. This has sunk cost fallacy vibes to me.

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          3 billion is a lot of money to pay for getting nothing, so yeah. I’ll change my tune when I actually see HLS, instead of the money being spent on developing another LEO lifter

          • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Do you know how you get new things? Not by not researching them? You should see the amount of money the US government alone has spent on fusion, and still nothing. Look at the money DARPA has spent! Sure, we got the internet, among others, but these people got the money before there was a finished product! And some of those projects failed!

            • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              And we, worldwide already have plenty of LEO lifters. Why do you want another, when the government can just pay for one?