20 years (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 weeks ago by threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works to c/spaceflightmemes@sh.itjust.works

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] burble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 2 weeks ago

Can tiny SpaceX rock Boeing?

They could literally buy part of Boeing's space division if they saw any value in it. How the turntables.

[-] taladar@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 weeks ago

Personally I think while SpaceX has made impressive progress they just aren't technologically advanced enough to fix the mess that is Boeing. Especially considering that leadership is one of the worst areas in SpaceX's own portfolio.

[-] huginn@feddit.it 7 points 2 weeks ago

SpaceX is more technologically advanced than Boeing when it comes to rockets.

Boeing is a slow, clumsy giant that has been necrotic for decades. We're just now seeing the toes fall off. It'll take a long time for Boeing to change, and in the meantime SpaceX will continue to be the leader in rockets.

[-] taladar@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 weeks ago

My point was that while SpaceX might be advanced in trivial fields such as rocket science fixing the huge mess that is Boeing clearly requires technologies that are basically indistinguishable from magic.

[-] huginn@feddit.it 5 points 2 weeks ago

Lmfao got it - yeah 100% agreed

[+] lemmus@lemmy.world -8 points 2 weeks ago

The booster catch is not what NASA paid for.

[-] Zer0_F0x@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago

NASA paid for the promise of a super cheap, high-availability, super heavy lift vehicle that could land on the moon and on Mars.

Rapidly reusable boosters and ships for refueling in orbit is the most important part of that promise, the landing on the moon and Mars part is relatively easy in comparison and has all been demonstrated by NASA themselves in the past.

Of course that's all just why they pretend to develop such systems, the true reason being American military presence anywhere on the planet within minutes.

[-] rbos@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago

I agree mostly, even without reusability Starship would be pretty cheap, though. Mass production techniques and cheap materials.

[-] lemmus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

They also paid for and agreed a timeline that included SpaceX landing humans on the moon in late 2025. There’s no way that’s happening anytime soon.

Super cheap reusable boosters are great, but they are worthless unless they help lift something of value, and right now Starship is an empty shell.

Late 2025 could easily become early 2030s.

[-] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

Late 2025 could easily become early 2030s.

True, but not exclusively because of SpaceX. The lunar suits are delayed, and the Orion heatshield has issues which need to be fixed before flying Artemis II and III.

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

NASA selected Starship for the moon landing, so this is exactly what they paid for.

this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024

48 points (94.4% liked)

SpaceflightMemes

624 readers

50 users here now

A Lemmy analogue to r/SpaceXMasterRace.

Related communities for serious posts and discussion.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works