/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15411545
>That's not quite true. SpaceX goes through design changes without flying anything.
So did the Soviets, the point I'm trying to make is NASA & contractors post 1980s don't launch anything they don't think will be successful. ULA isn't about the yeet a SLS based on a 30% chance of success, not even ESA does that anymore.
I know it's primarily due to (relatively) low manufacture cost but they still lost ~$39m in engines alone based on Musks lowest estimate on engine cost, that's still less than a single RS-25 so cheap for a HLV.

>>15411546
Care to elaborate?

>>12689978
>UAE and China both get Martian orbit days apart
New space race boys, rev up those rockets.

>>12588659
>orbital assembly
Sure but the reality is NASA isn't going to be talked into an orbital assembly manned lunar mission. Sadly much like /k/ our interest here is highly political and those political realities mean good and even great options aren't actually options at all.
The reason I say Starship is an option is because they could forgo any orbital construction or propulsive earth landing making it a political possibility.

>>12588670
See above, if I had my way we would already have millions of tons of Lunar infrastructure launched on Sea Dragons and Orions but neither were politically viable.

>>12272385
Don't kink shame me, just give me the space chode