Comments by "C S ~ \x5bDuke of Ramble\x5d" (@DUKE_of_RAMBLE) on "" video.
-
49
-
14
-
8
-
4
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@faikerdogan2802 Well I'm glad you're not one of them... However, you are mistaking Super Heavy/Starship with SLS, as that's the endeavor that's literally wasting billions.
SLS is over a decade behind schedule, and had had well over ten billion poured into it, with easily that much more slated to still be poured into it! (lowest estimate is $11bn; but I've heard it's closer to 14-18)
More importantly, what SpaceX does with their money is their own prerogative. Granted, they've been alloted funding by NASA, but it's not much in the grand scheme of things (est $3bn spent so far in the SH/SS program).
Whereas SLS is WHOLLY funded by taxpayers, and EACH LAUNCH costs us roughly what the entire Starship program has cost thus far! 😥 (~2.4bn)
So spending money on simulations across years, just to "do it right the first time", or on lots of hardware to do real world tests which provide real world data, what's the difference?
SpaceX is taking the same approach though, because at any point they can see that things could potentially not work and stop the program... Whereas the SLS approach took years and years and years to finally launch, which up until then it was a "Were still working on it, so it's foolish to cancel yet!", and now it's turned into a "Well, we've spent this much already, why stop how??"
RUDs might not look good from the outside looking in, but it is proven to get the job done... After all, that's the approach NASA took back in the day and it got us to the moon! SpaceX is just doing it smarter and faster... and probably cheaper, too!
1