• mycodesucks
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    10 hours ago

    It also helps that this one didn’t explode immediately due to lazy fast-fail engineering, scattering billions of tax dollars across the landscape while a bunch of drunken tech dude-bros cheer.

    • CookieOfFortune
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Probably would’ve been cheaper, faster, and better engineered if they did though. The reason NASA doesn’t do it is PR.

      • NocturnalMorning
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 hours ago

        NASA funding is dependent on public opinion (well it was until recently). Blowing up rockets gets people really upset when they think it’s their tax dollars.

        Somehow SpaceX has convinced people it’s a private company and not funded by government contracts and taxes.

        • partial_accumen
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Blowing up rockets gets people really upset when they think it’s their tax dollars.

          I love spaceflight and what the Artemis II accomplished, but it came with an absolutely staggering price tag. It cost a bit more than $50 Billion to design including both the rocket and the Orion capsule. It costs $1Billion each time it launches too. We only bought enough parts for 4 flights of the rocket, and we’ve now used 2 of those.

        • CookieOfFortune
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Because it’s not…? They get the contracts because they’re the cheapest option, and these days they make more money through Starlink anyways.

          And who else should CRS have gone to? Lockheed Martin and Boeing?