|
|
|
|
|
by somenameforme
876 days ago
|
|
Absolutely. But you're also not really considering that that was starting from literally nothing, and going at a hyper-accelerated rate. Now that we have that knowledge, to say nothing of a million other technological improvements, costs ought be dramatically lower. And indeed the Falcon Heavy's entire development cost about $500 million, over about 3 years of active development. [1] The SLS, which is NASA's latest ship - being developed by Boeing/Lockheed, started 13 years ago and has, so far, cost more than $30 billion (the costs listed on Wiki are 5 years outdated). [2] If/when it is ever completed, its ideal goal will be to carry ~2x as much as a Falcon Heavy, at a launch cost about of well over 20x as much. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Conception_and_fu... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System |
|
We'd have gotten on this path sooner and the waste that is SLS wouldn't have existed, if Congress+MIC hadn't intentionally misaligned incentives to suppress progress in favor of profit for decades.