SLS vs Starship
Just Jeepin' last edited by
I’ve just barely started reading this, probably won’t until after work, but it’s obvious it will be of interest to this audience. A very deep dive into these competing efforts.
Vondon302 last edited by
@just-jeepin Whew that is a big one. Started off good too. Saved for later also.
Skyfire77 last edited by
@just-jeepin Of course, the main difference is that Starship will actually be used. SLS is strictly a jobs program; any actual hardware is entirely inconsequential.
I just hope they find someone named Jefferson to ride the Starship.
sn4cktimes last edited by
The TLDR after reading that is at a worst-case scenario to use Starship will cost $2000/kg to get stuff to the moon. Anything else would cost more, a lot more. NASA's SLS relies on old tech, by comity-style, will work, will be expensive, is kind of a dead-end tech scenario due to the way gov't spending operates. The future is going to be a private industry try-fail-redoBetterFaster, with government launch permissions.
RallyDarkstrike last edited by RallyDarkstrike
@Just-Jeepin As much as I am not a huge fan of Musk or Tesla, I have to give him credit for what SpaceX has become and grown capable of doing...the fact, alone, that Rockets can take off, do stuff and then land back in the SAME PLACE, let alone ON A ROCKING/ROLLING SHIP IN THE OCEAN still boggles my mind...