The good news about SLS is that it’s not burning fracked natural gas like Elon’s rockets… it’s burning Hydrogen that was produced from fracked natural gas. It’s not green now, but it has the potential to be in the future. Cryogenic H2 requires some expense compared to cheap-and-dirty methylox.

The other advantage of SLS is that these rockets are owned by the people, not private companies. If we want an equitable future in space, we need NASA rockets. Right now the SLS is that rocket.

[–] megopie@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The SLS isn’t owned by the people ether, not really anyways, all the infrastructure and production lines are owned by Boeing which is just as bad as any of the new companies.

Personally I think NASA should just have an internal booster production team/facility like they do with rovers and probes through JPL.

It’s ludicrous to me that the consensus coming out of the space shuttle program and SLS that nasa’s designs were blamed for cost when the cost mainly came from choices made by private interests and contractors.

[–] Rekliner@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hadn't heard that take before... very interesting to learn of the influence Boeing has on NASA.

[–] megopie@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

I’d recommend looking in to the cost plus contracting system that nasa used for years and that can likely be blamed for the cost over runs and delays.

load more comments (20 replies)