Space

8341 readers

1 users here now

Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.

Rules

Be respectful and inclusive.
No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
Engage in constructive discussions.
Share relevant content.
Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Use appropriate language and tone.
Report violations.
Foster a continuous learning environment.

Picture of the Day

The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula

Related Communities

🔭 Science

🚀 Engineering

🌌 Art and Photography

Other Cool Links

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

NASA Tests Technology, Practices Artemis Moonwalks in Arizona Desert - NASA (www.nasa.gov)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Same for SLS, except way more expensive and way more far behind schedule.

Did some googling (go verify these numbers yourself if you want to):

SLS Dev.Costs so far: around $11.8 Billion (numbers from 2023 report), development started in 2011, reuses actual space shuttle parts instead of developing something on their own. Costs per launch estimate: $4.1 Billion
Starship Dev.Costs so far: $5 Billion, started somewhere in 2019, based on Falcon technology, which started in 2002. Cost per launch estimate: realistically somewhere around $100 Million (Falcon 9 costs ~$62Million per launch including profit). I'll ignore SpaceXs delirious goal of $2-$3 Million per launch for now.

Both companies are far behind schedule and budget. I think SLS will put a lander on the moon first and SLS will land the bulk of the whole program on the moon afterwards. Sort of like comparing an F1 car with a Full-sized Truck. After that Starship 3 launch, which was mostly successful, I am quite sure they'll make it work at some point in the future.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

You’re comparing a fully finished rocket development program to a half developed rocket.

SLS already did its first flight almost 2 years ago. It successfully delivered a fully functional crew capsule to earth orbit, and that capsule successfully flew around the moon and returned to earth. It was a fully functional rocket that completed all of its mission objectives.

Starship has not delivered itself to any orbit, let alone any useful systems. Flight 3 was “mostly successful” in the same way a crash landing is a landing. The stated goal was a suborbital flight to test booster return, the Pez door(something they are not contracted to develop), in flight fuel transfer, and Ship re-entry.

Starship managed to reach a suborbital altitude and speed. The booster separated and started its return, which ended in it slamming into the ocean at fighter jet speeds. The Pez door got jammed open after its first test, they just didn’t do the fuel transfer test(moving some fuel from a header tank to the main tank) and the ship was out of control and couldn’t be oriented for re-entry. It entered the atmosphere with its heat tiles facing sideways to the atmosphere and promptly disintegrated.

They failed more than half the goals of the flight. Basically everything after stage separation was a failure, and I don’t put much stock in the corporate spin of “everything after cleaning the pad is icing on the cake”

We’re not even talking about the fact that a fully fueled ship that’s supposed to take 100 tons to orbit is incapable of getting itself to orbit. Or that Elon recently announced Starship 2, which is going to be bigger and can take 150 tons to orbit. Starship 2 was not on the development timeline for Artemis.

If Starship ever makes it to orbit, I have no doubt that it will cost just as much as SLS to develop and launch.