• @ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      310 months ago

      https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/marshall/nasa-validates-revolutionary-propulsion-design-for-deep-space-missions/

      Literally basic research into differing mechanisms for rocket propulsion. What do you think they do? That took literally 10 seconds to find.

      So, you see “old technology” as bad, while people who actually do the work see it as “tested”. What, exactly, do you think they need to change? Do you think they haven’t modernized the components? If you actually read about it, at all, you can read their considerations on reusability, upfront cost, refit cost, and usage cadence.
      Basically, it’s more resource and cost effective to not reuse it.

      I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying with your four attempt thing. Do you think they developed their plans for a commercially viable orbital launch vehicle totally blind of NASA’s plans for commercialization of low Earth orbit? NASA was already doing commercial contracting when SpaceX started.
      And you’re forgetting that their first launches were purchased by darpa.

      Your last point just sounds like you’re agreeing with me. NASA has been doing deep space rocket development, and leaving routine work to companies. I’m not sure why that’s so disagreeable, considering it’s what they said they were doing, and are very clearly doing.