- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NASA pushes back dates for Artemis II and Artemis III missions.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:04 pm to LSU Jonno
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:04 pm to LSU Jonno
Sure, SLS is a marvel of engineering and a very capable video but it's just too expensive at $12 bn in development costs and an estimated $2bn per launch. Starship has about $5bn or so invested so far in developmental costs. That'll probably go up more but doubtful that it will reach the $12bn spent on SLS. Musk estimates a cost of $10 million per launch once all the kinks are worked out. Let's say Musk is wrong and it costs $30 mil per launch. Even at 20 launches to refuel and get the HLS to the moon you're looking at almost a quarter of the cost of the SLS.
Plus Starship is going to be doing a lot more than just launching starlink satellites. It's going to turn a profit just getting other commercial and government payloads to orbit.
If reusability weren't king in Aerospace then SpaceX wouldn't be the main player in the space industry right now. I mean there's SpaceX and there's everyone else in a very distant 2nd place. It's not even close. SpaceX sent like 90% of of payload to orbit for the entire planet last year.
SLS is just too expensive. NASA will launch 7-10 times for the Artemis program and then it will be canceled due to cost.
Plus Starship is going to be doing a lot more than just launching starlink satellites. It's going to turn a profit just getting other commercial and government payloads to orbit.
If reusability weren't king in Aerospace then SpaceX wouldn't be the main player in the space industry right now. I mean there's SpaceX and there's everyone else in a very distant 2nd place. It's not even close. SpaceX sent like 90% of of payload to orbit for the entire planet last year.
SLS is just too expensive. NASA will launch 7-10 times for the Artemis program and then it will be canceled due to cost.
1
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:12 pm to Scuttle But
The per launch cost numbers for Starship assume something like 140 launches per year which amortizes their manpower cost across those launches. That's a cost of about 2B per year which is more than what we spend on SLS. I'm not saying SLS is cheap but you are comparing apples to televisions.
Plus you are using predicted numbers on extrapolated launch rates, none of which is proven. It's really easy to make up numbers and feed them to the public.
A more accurate cost comparison would be cost per mission. There are plans to bring SLS's costs down. Will it touch what SpaceX can do? Well, probably not, but per-mission costs will be closer than you think when you take into account 20 launches per mission for Starship for Artemis.
Simply launching SLS twice a year would make up that difference.
Plus you are using predicted numbers on extrapolated launch rates, none of which is proven. It's really easy to make up numbers and feed them to the public.
A more accurate cost comparison would be cost per mission. There are plans to bring SLS's costs down. Will it touch what SpaceX can do? Well, probably not, but per-mission costs will be closer than you think when you take into account 20 launches per mission for Starship for Artemis.
Simply launching SLS twice a year would make up that difference.
This post was edited on 1/10/24 at 9:15 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News