So I’ve heard and seen the newest launch, and I thought for a private firm it seemed cool they were able to do it on their own, but I’m scratching my head that people are gushing about this as some hail mary.

I get the engineering required is staggering when it comes to these rocket tests, but NASA and other big space agencies have already done rocket tests and exploring bits of the moon which still astounds me to this day.

Is it because it’s not a multi billion government institution? When I tell colleagues about NASA doing stuff like this yeaaaars ago they’re like “Yea yea but this is different it’s crazy bro”

Can anyone help me understand? Any SpaceX or Tesla fans here?

  • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Imagine you want to build a cabin in a very remote place in Alaska.

    Getting there is quite difficult, you did it a few times in the 60’s but the path is so bad that you had to throw the truck away each time (around $45,000 per trip, for the truck + gas)

    You are still planning to build your cabin but having to buy a new truck for each trip is not great, plus the fact that only one company can make this SLS truck so you can’t get more than once a year.

    Building a cabin in these circumstances is close to impossible.

    Now SpaceX makes a new Starship truck that can go all the way AND be reused. The trip from the hardware store to the build site now only costs you around $100 for the gas plus truck expenses AND you can now do the trip to the hardware store multiple times a day !

    Now building the cabin becomes way more accessible.

    Replace the Alaskan cabin with a scientific base on the moon or Mars and multiply the amounts by 100,000 and you have an approximation of the situation

    • farngis_mcgiles@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      NASA could have done this if they had the budget. Instead we’d rather give huge tax cuts to billionaires so they can build a private sector NASA to charge NASA exorbitant sums to use their private vehicles. It’s the most asinine and innefficient way of going about it.

      • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        16 hours ago

        No, NASA has the budget. They already spent $50 billion on the development of SLS and Orion, Starship development cost is estimated to be around $10 billion.

        So in theory with the money they spent on SLS they could have built 5 starship program.

        The problem is that NASA has to follow political interests, sometimes the political interests align with technical interest and we get great things like the Apollo program.

        • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          15 hours ago

          They also have a very tight tolerance of failure. Every failure made in the engineering process brings more and more scrutiny by those holding the purse strings in Washington.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Space X has less bureaucracy and can pursue other commercial ventures. The amount nasa pays is high, but it’s still cheaper than continuing their old program

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          Plus NASA can’t afford the risk. If SpaceX failed, no big deal. We would have lost some money and everyone would ridicule Musk. If NASA tried it and failed, they would not only have lost five times the money, but would be parylized by investigations, audits, cutbacks. NASA does a LOT more than just rockets and it would all be at risk

          Plus notice NASA has been investing in multiple commercial programs where possible. 3 big rocket programs. Two crew capsules and multiple cargo capsules. Multiple space stations, etc. NASA could not have created this redundancy on their own