I was quoting an article from @SciGuySpace https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-staggering-146-million-for-each-sls-rocket-engine/ …
-
-
Replying to @joshuaRenkema @NASAStennis and
Yeah not true. Berger is a notorious liar. That’s the cost of the development of an enteriely new engine, decided by the amount of engines NASA is going to buy The actual cost per engine is far lower
5 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @ThePrimalDino @joshuaRenkema and
I would love to see your sources and price analysis.
5 replies 3 retweets 110 likes -
Replying to @DJSnM @ThePrimalDino and
The math is pretty simple. You add up the value of the contracts NASA has given AJR for engines, and divide it by the number of engines AJR is delivering.
5 replies 1 retweet 98 likes -
Replying to @SciGuySpace @DJSnM and
bio of
@ThePrimalDino: "SLS is litterally the best thing." LOL1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
-
Replying to @ThePrimalDino @SciGuySpace and
Not at all. SLS is my absolute favorite rocket in the set of things-that-dont-exist-and-will-be-disposable-if-they're-ever-delivered
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @SciGuySpace and
SLS exists what are you talking aboutpic.twitter.com/CSAYpB5NpD
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ThePrimalDino @SciGuySpace and
Sure, and fusion electrical power exists toopic.twitter.com/a9jgxUhFxJ
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
I'm agreeing with you! There are fusion reactors that haven't yet generated electricity, and there are SLS rockets that haven't yet flown! (The difference, though, is that when we finally do get fusion reactors working they won't have a 7 min lifespan & then be discarded)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.