• Balex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      It looks like about 1/3 of Blue Origin’s total funds comes from government contacts. Now keep in mind, that means Blue Origin is providing a service in exchange for that money, it’s not just handed to them.

      • eldavi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        is nasa somehow incapable of providing any service that blue origin provides?

        • Balex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          NASA just realistically isn’t a launch provider. SLS began development in 2011 and has only flown twice since 2022. It’s has cost them almost $32 billion to develop. It even uses quite a bit of older hardware despite all the development costs.

          Compare that to SpaceX’s Starship. It started full development in 2019, has cost $15 billion to date, brand new everything, fully reusable, developed arguably the best engine ever made, has flown multiple times now (to varying degrees of success).

          • eldavi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            NASA just realistically isn’t a launch provider. SLS began development in 2011 and has only flown twice since 2022. It’s has cost them almost $32 billion to develop. It even uses quite a bit of older hardware despite all the development costs.

            i’m going to chose to believe that you’ll agree w me that these deficiencies were intentionally manufactured “reagan-style”.

            • Doomsider@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              Yup, the same way they have crippled the US Post service. They destroy everything that is good so their friends can privatize and take over to reap huge profits.

            • Balex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              23 hours ago

              I’m not too familiar with the politics behind all of this, especially around that time. My understanding is that it’s mainly a difference in approach to development. NASA has to worry about appealing to politicians and the public. So they spend more time and money to make sure to get it right the first time.

              SpaceX doesn’t have that same kind of worry, so they can develop quickly and fly test vehicles often to learn quickly.

              There’s pros and cons to both sides imo, but that’s why I think it makes more sense for NASA to use private launch providers while they focus more on the missions themselves.

          • BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I thought total cost of SLS program is above 100billion alredy. And all that to fly bunch of people around the moon

            • Balex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              23 hours ago

              That’s for the entire Artemis program. SLS is just one part of that. I guess since I was comparing it to Starship it’d be fair to include Orion which would bump it up to $44 billion.