LogFAQs > #977149590

You didn't answer my question - what's the problem w/ continuing to allow NASA (and potentially SLS) to progress? Why the rush to get into space faster that justifies condoning SpaceEx fatalities?

NASA should continue developing and supporting its in-home and contracted solutions. SLS can and should continue. The money is already spent and it will have unique capabilities if ever fully realized. Artemis might be possible without SLS but we really should use it for the crew rating and abort methods.

NASA should also be extremely proud if the Dream Chaser launch goes perfectly next month.

If there's a rush or a new space race, it's because geopolitics and the dawn of literal space warfare began this past month. Twice now. That is not an excuse to cut corners or endanger employees. SpaceX has a cowboy bang-that-together attitude and it has unacceptable costs It has to stop. Mistakes and shitty safety culture on the ground will kill. And then those same mistakes can be deadly or costly as Russia, Blue Origin, SpaceX, etc have shown.

Also your "it's extremely corrupt"/"only made it this far" are really broad statements (like saying NASA only creates jobs to create jobs) - do you have a source? Wiki shows some criticism of the selection process - but nothing concrete?

I can post contracts and the like but 1 billion per launch is insane. The cost comes from these contracts being legacy and poorly structured. Falcon Heavy isn't even 100 million per launch and it's mostly reusable.

Reference:
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105609
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-23-015.pdf

Finally what do you mean "SpaceX tests their way through approvals"? Successful launches? That wasn't your criticism of SLS - it was cost per launch.

For example, SpaceX exhaustively tested their Crew Dragon using helicopter drops. Boeing decided to do paperwork instead to barely meet the requirements and then still had their parachutes and other components perform poorly during their Starliner tests.