Why does NASA bother making rockets?
No.11780226 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Quoted By: >>11781591 >>11781593 >>11781599 >>11781624 >>11782083
NASA is excellent at making scientific equipment.
But their rockets are expensive, and limited in availability. Even their incomplete SLS is technologically and economically inferior to what SpaceX has already been using for a while.
SLS vs Falcon Heavy, advantages and disadvantages:
+ 50-100% higher launch capacity (to LEO, couldn't find comparisons for more distant targets, but they both can deliver outside Earth orbit)
- Launch cost estimate of 500M-2000M (vs 90M)
- Incomplete design, requires immense funding to develop
- Untested design, would probably have inferior reliability at first
- Far worse for the environment; similar fuel usage, but 0 reusability
- Lower modularity
It's not even possible for the SLS to enjoy its only advantage, because NASA doesn't have anything to launch that's too heavy for one FH and can't be split across two, and by the time they do make something SLS-exclusive to launch the ITS will likely be in service and it'll almost certainly be superior given the track record of SpaceX.
Didn't NASA financially bail out SpaceX early on because they could see SpaceX was developing and launching rockets on a shoestring budget, and they realised that a billion-dollar bailout could eventually save many billions of dollars with cheap contracted launches? Why are they not saving those billions and using it to make stuff for SpaceX to launch?
But their rockets are expensive, and limited in availability. Even their incomplete SLS is technologically and economically inferior to what SpaceX has already been using for a while.
SLS vs Falcon Heavy, advantages and disadvantages:
+ 50-100% higher launch capacity (to LEO, couldn't find comparisons for more distant targets, but they both can deliver outside Earth orbit)
- Launch cost estimate of 500M-2000M (vs 90M)
- Incomplete design, requires immense funding to develop
- Untested design, would probably have inferior reliability at first
- Far worse for the environment; similar fuel usage, but 0 reusability
- Lower modularity
It's not even possible for the SLS to enjoy its only advantage, because NASA doesn't have anything to launch that's too heavy for one FH and can't be split across two, and by the time they do make something SLS-exclusive to launch the ITS will likely be in service and it'll almost certainly be superior given the track record of SpaceX.
Didn't NASA financially bail out SpaceX early on because they could see SpaceX was developing and launching rockets on a shoestring budget, and they realised that a billion-dollar bailout could eventually save many billions of dollars with cheap contracted launches? Why are they not saving those billions and using it to make stuff for SpaceX to launch?
