- 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 9:23 pm to LSU Jonno
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:23 pm to LSU Jonno
I did compare cost per mission. 20 launches(could end up being less) at 30 mil a pop is 600 mil compared to 2 bn for SLS. Why do you think Starship eventually launch 140 times per year? Falcon rockets launched nearly 100 times just this year and the market is growing.
I'm not saying it won't take a few years or more to get to that rate but there's no reason to think that it won't. SpaceX has a proven track record. I wouldn't bet against them.
NASA has already said the cost of SLS is unsustainable. It's going to be the last rocket NASA owns and operates. They're all in on private companies hauling the mail for them.
I'm not saying it won't take a few years or more to get to that rate but there's no reason to think that it won't. SpaceX has a proven track record. I wouldn't bet against them.
NASA has already said the cost of SLS is unsustainable. It's going to be the last rocket NASA owns and operates. They're all in on private companies hauling the mail for them.
1
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:35 pm to Scuttle But
I would agree that SLS will be the last cost plus contract that NASA ever awards for large space vehicles. They will move to fixed price contracts like they used for Falcon 9 development etc.
But having said that, NASA has always been all in on private companies hauling the mail.
Everything they've ever done in manned spaceflight has been through contracts to private companies.
It's not unreal for SLS costs to drop from 2B per year to 1.6B per year with two launches per year. As you say they've admitted current costs are unsustainable and they are working to bring those costs down through better contracts. That would be 800 mil per launch or per mission vs. 600 mil for SpaceX. So not exactly SpaceX efficiency but it's not absurdly more expensive either. Given the reduction in mission complexity of 1 launch vs 15-20 it actually starts to make sense.
But all of this assumes a market for more launches and what we've seen so far is there isn't one. I'd bet over 90% of SpaceX launches last year were launching Starlink. You say the market is growing, but it empirically isn't (yet). Especially not for super heavy lift vehicles.
But having said that, NASA has always been all in on private companies hauling the mail.
Everything they've ever done in manned spaceflight has been through contracts to private companies. It's not unreal for SLS costs to drop from 2B per year to 1.6B per year with two launches per year. As you say they've admitted current costs are unsustainable and they are working to bring those costs down through better contracts. That would be 800 mil per launch or per mission vs. 600 mil for SpaceX. So not exactly SpaceX efficiency but it's not absurdly more expensive either. Given the reduction in mission complexity of 1 launch vs 15-20 it actually starts to make sense.
But all of this assumes a market for more launches and what we've seen so far is there isn't one. I'd bet over 90% of SpaceX launches last year were launching Starlink. You say the market is growing, but it empirically isn't (yet). Especially not for super heavy lift vehicles.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News