Cheaper isn’t always better. NASA programs like LM’s SLS don’t get to fail on live TV or they lose their budget, so they’re over engineered and built slowly which leads to higher costs. But SLS also hasn’t failed on any launch, unlike SpaceX programs.
Don’t get me wrong, I want all space projects to succeed. But it’s disingenuous to say people can’t be critical of SpaceX because of “being brainwashed”. They have a somewhat reckless deployment method for the space industry with dubious reliability.
Which is why it is so impressive that the Falcon 9 is cheaper than the competition and more reliable.
SLS is still in early days so it’s hard to compare as it lacks numbers of reusability. But any rocket that has flown a lot whether it be the shuttle or even the mighty Soyuz. Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in the world and the cheapest.
If NASA can’t build rockets as cheap or as reliable as space X then I think the argument is that the SLS is a waste of money.
Cheaper isn’t always better. NASA programs like LM’s SLS don’t get to fail on live TV or they lose their budget, so they’re over engineered and built slowly which leads to higher costs. But SLS also hasn’t failed on any launch, unlike SpaceX programs.
Don’t get me wrong, I want all space projects to succeed. But it’s disingenuous to say people can’t be critical of SpaceX because of “being brainwashed”. They have a somewhat reckless deployment method for the space industry with dubious reliability.
Cheaper isn’t always better no.
Which is why it is so impressive that the Falcon 9 is cheaper than the competition and more reliable.
SLS is still in early days so it’s hard to compare as it lacks numbers of reusability. But any rocket that has flown a lot whether it be the shuttle or even the mighty Soyuz. Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in the world and the cheapest.
If NASA can’t build rockets as cheap or as reliable as space X then I think the argument is that the SLS is a waste of money.