>>11981389well he's right
Spaceship is in development, making progress, but it's still in "silo with an engine" stage.
its parameters are pulled up out of Elon's wet dreams and there's absolutely no guarantee it won't cost 10 times more, refurbishing won't cost a fortune, won't blow up on return or tip over and explode (with crew inside, mind you)
I would rather return in Space Shuttle than on Spaceship if its recovery rate is anything like F9's boosters, where 1 in 10 blows up on landing.
Cancelling SLS and hoping SS will turn out as hoped for half a decade later is insanity.
That doesn't change the fact SLS is overbudget and late. Saying "Saturn V was more expensive" is bullshit.
Saturn V was completely unexplored territory, was much more complex, using old technology, making it more expensive (eg. wiring analog controls vs. digital controllers)
SLS was intended as a low cost cannibalization of Shuttle and its production chain to be flown in the meantime we get better alternative. Its development should have been cheaper than Falcon 9 (theoretically, in an ideal world).
Boing is terrible company. If it wasn't making super sonic stealth fighter jets for bombing toyota trucks out in the desert, they would have gone bankrupt years ago. Even Airbus is much better, and that's a Tower of Babel of a company run from several countries.
Still, even if Starship under-performs and won't reusable at all from yet unforeseen reasons, it still should be a really cost effective rocket.
