Hacker News Reader

Comment by hef19898 | Hacker News Reader

hef19898

We do not have any reliable financials from SpaceX, just advertized launch costs and PR releases. SLS on the other hand has, as does e.g. Ariane-6, public budgets and a lot more bureaucracy.

For Starship to make things like SLS obsolete, it has to be available first. Until then, it is just pure speculation. Is SLS more expensive than Starship development wise? Yes. But it is not the goal of a government to be profitable, nor is it to hand technologocal monopolies to eratic billionaires. Supporting alternatives is always good, and it maintains know-how and technology at different companies, which is also a good thing.

View on HN

Starship's a red herring. The SLS is already so far behind the game (before even being finished) that it lacks any rational argument even against the Falcon Heavy, which has been in service for years. And nobody's being handed monopolies. Government space contracts have a competitive bidding process. If Boeing/Lockheed, Blue Origin, or any of the other less known aerospace startups can come up with something that can reasonably compete against half a decade old SpaceX tech then I'd love to see it as much as anybody else. But for now that's simply not happening, and just corruptly tossing tens of billions of dollars towards Boeing/Lockheed isn't bringing us any closer to that happening.

Assuming Starship succeeds, hopefully at that point other players will adopt the basic design, iterate and improve, then forcefully compete. I'm still surprised that, all these years after Falcon 9 obviously works, there isn't a "clone" on the market. (I am aware there are couple of small "new space" companies working on something similar.)

Agreed. I think you can even take it further than other new small space companies. Boeing and China would both absolutely love to replicate SpaceX's tech, and both have (relative to SpaceX) practically unlimited resources to do so, yet both are still nowhere near them yet, and not for lack of trying.

From an outsider's perspective it's quite difficult to understand what the big barrier is.

> But it is not the goal of a government to be profitable, nor is it to hand technologocal monopolies to eratic billionaires.

So instead it should award contracts - without any competition even - to big established aerospace firms such as Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and Aerojet? SpaceX, by contrast, won its most important NASA contracts (ISS cargo and crew, HLS) by open competition.

> Supporting alternatives is always good, and it maintains know-how and technology at different companies, which is also a good thing.

If NASA wanted to do that, they would have spread the SLS/Orion money around newer and more innovative players (not just SpaceX-Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, Axiom, Relativity, etc), rather than giving billions to Boeing/Lockheed/Aerojet/etc to keep alive technologies from the 1970s. Of course, Congress wouldn’t let NASA do that

> We do not have any reliable financials from SpaceX, just advertized launch costs and PR releases. SLS on the other hand has, as does e.g. Ariane-6, public budgets and a lot more bureaucracy.

We know how much SLS and Ariane 6 have spent, but that's not any kind of reliable indicator of how much they're going to cost.

> For Starship to make things like SLS obsolete, it has to be available first. Until then, it is just pure speculation.

Only if SLS is ever going to be available. If Starship is further along in development, that's pretty suggestive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com