Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

JungleJones4124 t1_je8fvqp wrote

I'm well aware of this fact. However, if they just scrapped it there would be no going to the moon for quite some time. You work with what you have, not what you want.


w0mbatina t1_je96742 wrote

>However, if they just scrapped it there would be no going to the moon for quite some time.

That's quite a bold statement. Especially isnce scrapping SLS would have freed up a lot of resources to design and build something, you know, better.


JungleJones4124 t1_je9trsj wrote

Do you know how long it takes government to build something that goes to the moon with the budget NASA has? We'd be waiting for another 15 years. Quick case study: The Shuttle took a decade and it was only going to LEO and back.

Private space companies are definitely shaking things up, but they aren't the main driving force behind anything related the Moon at this time. They're not even in the ballpark for science only missions. NASA, still has a huge role to play. Unfortunately, that means the monstrosity that is SLS in here to stay for at least another decade - hopefully that can get phased out and the money redistributed accordingly.


Layer_4_Solutions t1_jeawef8 wrote

Sending humans to the moon on old, expensive technology is not valuable.

Moon launches should be a way to innovate and get costs down to move us towards a more sustainable(eventually self-sustaining) space program.


obsesivegamer t1_je8jcfa wrote

That I agree with, Its better than nothing but still makes me sad that after all this time we basically got a delta 4 heavy + with worse capabilities than the Saturn V and laughable economics.

NASA needs to get in gear


seanflyon t1_je8y4qk wrote

They could go to the Moon without SLS. Here is a video describe some of the obvious options. Basically, it would be a lot cheaper to go to the Moon without SLS and it would take nearly zero development beyond what is already needed for the planed lunar landings.