You could take the money that was given to SpaceX for commercial crew and spend it on SLS instead. You'd increase the SLS budget from ~$20B to ~$23B. And really all you're doing is giving money to Boeing instead of SpaceX. And you end up with an LV that costs 5-10x per launch
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
(The commercial crew budget includes the actual costs of the launch, SLS is just development costs). I don't see that as hobbling your space program, just having the company building the rockets manage the launch instead of contracting parts out and integrating yourself
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The problem is that NASA is optimized to employ as many contractors as possible. And congress wants it that way, and dictates their funding to continue making that the case. When you combine that with a potential dramatic shift in goals every 4-8 years, this path makes sense
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @tef
I didn't think I was claiming those are the two options? I'm saying what we have now is better than what we had before, and I don't think you can just funnel the money spent on it into the existing system and expect something better
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @tef
"But a billionaire gets richer" implies that billionaires weren't getting richer on the shuttle
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The point I'm arguing with is that you're comparing this to the shuttle, when the alternative that existed when this program started was paying a foreign nation to launch people. Going from "we pay another country to launch" to "we pay our own people" to launch is good
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
If the workers owning the means of production were a realistic option in this I'd support it
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
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.