291
[Video] Jeff Bezos Blue Origin rocket test launch results in massive explosion (i.imgur.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.ml
67 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

alternative video upload: https://streamable.com/e/r2uuco

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

NASA just realistically isn't a launch provider. SLS began development in 2011 and has only flown twice since 2022. It's has cost them almost $32 billion to develop. It even uses quite a bit of older hardware despite all the development costs.

Compare that to SpaceX's Starship. It started full development in 2019, has cost $15 billion to date, brand new everything, fully reusable, developed arguably the best engine ever made, has flown multiple times now (to varying degrees of success).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    NASA just realistically isn’t a launch provider. SLS began development in 2011 and has only flown twice since 2022. It’s has cost them almost $32 billion to develop. It even uses quite a bit of older hardware despite all the development costs.

    i'm going to chose to believe that you'll agree w me that these deficiencies were intentionally manufactured "reagan-style".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not too familiar with the politics behind all of this, especially around that time. My understanding is that it's mainly a difference in approach to development. NASA has to worry about appealing to politicians and the public. So they spend more time and money to make sure to get it right the first time.

    SpaceX doesn't have that same kind of worry, so they can develop quickly and fly test vehicles often to learn quickly.

    There's pros and cons to both sides imo, but that's why I think it makes more sense for NASA to use private launch providers while they focus more on the missions themselves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    I’m not too familiar with the politics behind all of this, especially around that time.

    since president nixon, there's been a well documented trend of gov't programs intentionally starved of federal resources, with the goal of justifying private industry taking over services those programs once provided themselves. spacex is probably the most modern manifestation of this trend.

    those "pros and cons" are a false framing intended to steer your opinion away from the question of why nasa can't do this themselves anymore.

    the last time nasa did this themselves, humanity got smartphones and modern medicine but when spacex does this, the only thing that happens is an epstein oligarch gets A LOT richer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    I thought total cost of SLS program is above 100billion alredy. And all that to fly bunch of people around the moon

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    That's for the entire Artemis program. SLS is just one part of that. I guess since I was comparing it to Starship it'd be fair to include Orion which would bump it up to $44 billion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent