Spacex

Out of context: Reply #135

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 278 Responses
  • detritus0

    Even if they push $100M per FH launch, that makes it 10x cheaper than a launch of a single SLS.

    there's only 7 tonnes difference in weight to orbit between them on a single flight, so for the cost of one SLS, we could get 600 tonnes to orbit.

    That's components for a moonbase or moon orbiting/lagrangian point space station.

    I can't wait to see what this, Blue Origin and China do in the next 20 years. Russia and Europe will stay Sciencey for too long whilst the rest of the world lunges forth and capitalises space.

    • yeah. NASA and Euro can't take the same risks that happy-go-lucky billionaires and budget Asian space setups can. Also don't have the same revenue streamsFax_Benson
    • NASA and Euro could take those risks (and used to)—we just live in a sappy pussified fucking world where the Gov's hands are tied leaving it to the priv. sectorPonyBoy
    • they used to be able to justify the spend in cold war terms but can't get away with potentially blowing up $bns of taxpayer monies these days. or at leastFax_Benson
    • that's the narrativeFax_Benson
    • Exactly, fax - now the point is to let commerical interests pick up the reins and and use the tech. Just that the climate in the EU isn't as hungry as the USdetritus
    • NASA still pushes boundaries where it can - just that these days they're not as comesmtically 'exciting' - supersonic parachutes and rocket descendersdetritus
    • Unfortunately the US congress has bloated everything else though - just like Lockheed and BAE do elsewhere. Cunts.detritus

View thread