• @Poach
    link
    English
    331 month ago

    I mean SpaceX is only about 5 years and $5 billion behind in their timeline and budget to go to the moon. So, Starship doesn’t seem to be a serious vehicle.

    • @Bimfred
      link
      English
      171 month ago

      People love bringing up that Starship was supposed to be doing round trips to the Moon and Mars by now, but when has anything space ever been on budget, in time, and working perfectly on the first try? Every new launch vehicle takes longer and more money than initial optimistic predictions state. Damn near every probe and telescope is years over deadlines and often a significant percentage of first estimates over budget.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 month ago

        The problem isn’t so much new vehicle takes time, it’s the bullshit spacex fanboys spout about every other rocket company for doing the same thing.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 month ago

          The difference is in scale. For the cost of the SLS program, which is likely to be scrapped next year, you could fund the entirety of SpaceX to this point in history. It’s also in success rate, SpaceX within the next five years will have more successful launches than any other space company or organization. They’re already more prolific than any conpetitor with a viable launch vehicle, except Russia.

    • @9bananas
      link
      English
      131 month ago

      i mean…going to the moon be expensive

      the u.s. spent about 96 billion on launch vehicles alone so getting stretching those 5 billion as far they did is pretty impressive in comparison!

      sure, it’s taking longer than musk claimed, but pretty much everyone else said from the very beginning that musk’s timeline is unrealistic…

      god i hate that idiot…spaceX could be so much better at what it does without him…